/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210719.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, July 19, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 137
Headlines
ABC WORLD NEWS: S.D. New York Dismisses Foster's Amended Complaint
ABM INDUSTRIES: Settlement Entered in Bucio Class Suit
AIR METHODS: Cowen Cross-Appeals Ruling in Breach of Contract Suit
ALLIED PILOTS: American Airlines Appeals Ruling in Breach Suit
AT&T CORP: Ky. App. Vacates Class Certification in Feltner Suit
ATHIRA PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 24 Deadline
BA SPORTS: Silver Suit Seeks to Extend Class Cert Filing Deadline
BANK OF AMERICA: Brooks Must File Class Cert. Bid by Jan. 21, 2022
BANK OF AMERICA: Frausto Appeals Class Certification Bid Denial
CHS INC: Seeds and Chemicals Price Fixing Lawsuits Underway
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: October 6 Claim Form Submission Deadline Set
DARIOHEALTH CORP: Bylaws Related Putative Class Suit Underway
DAVE & BUSTER'S: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, York Suit Alleges
DAYTONA TRIMMINGS: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
DIDI GLOBAL: Block & Leviton Reminds of September 7 Deadline
FACEBOOK INC: dotStrategy Appeals Class Certification Bid Denial
FACEBOOK INC: Trump Says Legal Action Victorious for Constitution
FACEBOOK INC: Trump Says Social Media Firms Not Immune From Lawsuit
FRANCISCO VALADEZ: FLSA Collective Gets Conditional Certification
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
GENERAL MOTORS: Small Sues Over Vehicles' Defective Tail Lamps
GOOGLE LLC: Singh Suit Seeks to Certify Class
GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Roberts Hits Illegal Biometric Data Collection
HAI TRIM INC: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
HOME POINT: Klein Law Firm Reminds of August 20 Deadline
HOME POINT: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 20 Deadline
HOUSE OF CB: Brooks' Bid for Default Judgment Denied W/o Prejudice
INDUS CO: Seeks August 9 Extension for Class Cert. Bid Opposition
INTREPID INSURANCE: Monday Restaurants Appeals Case Dismissal
J.B. HUNT: Suit Seeks to Certify California Resident Drivers Class
JP MORGAN: London Court Set to Decide on Forex Class Action
KEEFE COMMISSARY: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Reichert Suit
KEEFE COMMISSARY: Rapid Investments Appeals Ruling in Reichert Case
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Shelton Sues Over Defective Breathing Machines
KURA SUSHI: Mediation in Gomes Class Action Set for September 24
KUSHCO HOLDINGS: May Putative Class Suit Disimissed
LINCARE INC: Appeals Judgment in Balderson Discrimination Suit
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Bid to Nix Purported Securities Class Suit Pending
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Securities Class Suit in Quebec Underway
M.A.C. GRADING: Court Approves Settlement Deal in Santos Suit
MICHIGAN: Swanson Files Appeals Ruling in Class Suit
MRS BPO LLC: Liebman FDCPA Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
NCAA: Beard Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NCAA: Bowman Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NCAA: Diskint Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NCAA: Dunlap Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NCAA: Harris Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NCAA: Holland Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NETFLIX INC: Faces Streaming Tax Class Action From Ohio Cities
NEW JERSEY VENTURES: Denial of Arbitration in Sikorski Suit Upheld
NEW YORK CITY: Court Closes EMS Union Bid for Class Certification
NEW YORK PIZZERIA: Seeks 5th Cir. Review in Ettorre FLSA Suit
NEWMAN TECH: Miner Seeks to Certify Manufacturing Employees Class
NEXTGEAR CAPITAL: $6.7MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 28
OREGON: Vollert Suit Stayed Pending Class Cert Resolution in Maney
OVINTIV INC: Swafford Files Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
PRATT INSTITUTE: New York Court Narrows Claims in Hewitt Class Suit
PROCOLLECT INC: Tennessee Court Dismisses Kale FDCPA Class Suit
PROVENTION BIO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 20 Deadline
PURDUE PHARMA: Hancock County Votes to Accept Settlement Terms
R&J ENTERTAINMENT: Newman Suit Moved to D. New Jersey
RED DOOR GROUP: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
REKOR SYSTEMS: Block & Leviton Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
ROCKET COMPANIES: Faces Qaiyum Suit Over 17% Share Price Drop
SALINE COUNTY, AR: Bid for Class Certification in Baker Suit Denied
SALINE COUNTY, AR: Bid for Class Certification in Smith Suit Denied
SALINE COUNTY, AR: Bid to Certify Class in Hooker Suit Denied
SALINE COUNTY, AR: Bid to Certify Class in Moore Suit Denied
SALINE COUNTY, AR: Bid to Certify Class in Roberts Suit Denied
SALINE COUNTY, AR: Bid to Certify Class in Upperman Suit Denied
SALINE COUNTY, AR: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Garner Suit
SALINE COUNTY, AR: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Mercer Suit
SALINE COUNTY, AR: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Vaughn Suit
SAS INSTITUTE: Heathcote Appeals Ruling in Cahoo Insurance Suit
SAYER LAW: Deadline to file Class Cert. Bid Extended to August 2
SHIFTPIXY INC: Splond Wage-and-Hour Class Action Underway
SNAP INC: K.F.C. Appeals BIPA Class Action Lawsuit Dismissal
SONY MUSIC: Class Action Over Corporate Culture Receives Enquiries
SUBARU CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Battery Problems
SUNY ALBANY: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Duguid Suit
TIVITY HEALTH: October 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
TRANSUNION: Obtains Favorable Supreme Court Ruling in Class Suit
TUDOR RANCH: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik Files Class Action
UNITED PARCEL: Rizvanovic Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VELODYNE LIDAR: Court Consolidates Three Securities Class Suits
VIVID SEATS: Class Claims in Brouillette Dismissed W/o Prejudice
[*] Defendants in Lemon Creek Fuel Spill Class Suit Appeal Ruling
[*] PRO Act Prohibits Class-Action Waivers in Arbitration
*********
ABC WORLD NEWS: S.D. New York Dismisses Foster's Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER FOSTER, Plaintiff v. DAVID MUIR; ABC WORLD
NEWS, Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-3711 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Laura
Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York dismisses the amended complaint.
David Jason Muir is an American journalist and the anchor of ABC
World News Tonight.
The Plaintiff originally filed this action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Foster v. Muir, No.
1:21-CV-0252 (S.D. Ohio, Apr. 26, 2021). By order dated April 26,
2021, Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman transferred the action
to this Court.
Plaintiff Foster, who is currently incarcerated in the Toledo
Correctional Institution in Toledo, Ohio, brings the pro se action,
alleging that the Defendants violated his rights. The original
complaint listed Mr. Foster as the Plaintiff, but the caption to
the amended complaint instead lists "F.R.E.E. Things Matter, et
al." as the sole Plaintiff in the action.
The amended complaint describes F.R.E.E. Things Matter as a
registered "entity that advocates for the advocates of individuals
with disabilities including but not limited to the special
operations that are necessary to ensure that the Federal Government
plays a central role in enforcing these advocacy protections, in
lieu of the Americans with Disabilities Act." The Plaintiff is a
"member of the board of directors" of F.R.E.E. Things Matter and
purports to bring his claims as a class action.
The amended complaint alleges that the "Defendant(s) Class gave
false information in a news report" that the Plaintiff asserts
violates the New York State and City Human Rights Laws and the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The amended complaint references a "fundraiser" established on
Facebook for F.R.E.E. Things Matter: "Weeks after the fundraiser
reviewable through Facebook.com/Freethingsmatter came into effect,
Foster v. Trump, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179243 at its core
reasoning, specifically because it was the first case against
Trump's insurrection, filed in February 2020, initially, about a
year before reaching today's stage, the Defendant(s) directly or
indirectly, used commerce in excess of 42USCS12181(1)7 and
42USCS12203(b), to the extent that notice that repeatedly was
circulated by the Defendant(s) class, summarily, explained that
Foster v. Trump, was not the first case concerning the Trump
insurrection issue, and instead, as of its continues notice or
reporting that began on Feb. 16th, 2021, then continued throughout
that day and week, the Defendant(s) class provided that Bennie G.
Thompson, was the first to file about the Trump insurrection, thus
causing an effect on the Plaintiff(s) class herein, akin to that of
Ragin v. Harry Macklowe Real Estate Co., 801 F.Supp. 1213, 1225,
because the Plaintiff(s) class had to begin counteracting this
false information, investigating how to contact, also contacting
Defendant(s) Class, and more work outside of work intended."
The Plaintiff alleges that with a fundraiser deadline in late June
2021, the only way for the Plaintiff(s) Class to counteract the
Defendant(s) Class on basis of their false notice, is by the
Defendant(s) Class going on T.V. to air a correction stating that
it erred in its reporting.
The Plaintiff's website "received several bad reviews," causing
"silent investors" to "turn the other way" and for the Plaintiff to
no longer be able to pay the web-hosting fees. Donors are
therefore at confusion as to whether they are donating to the cause
of the first case against the insurrection or a false
representation. This is akin to the effect discriminatory
communication, on an advertisement basis had on the DHC members in
Ragin."
The Plaintiff concludes that the Defendant(s) Class interference
made the fundraiser means of regulating commerce fall to the effect
of being withheld directly or indirectly, made the interactive
process or opportunity to participate impossible, and directly or
indirectly made it so accomplishing the late June 2021, deadline,
without an injunction have the effect of denial or at least being
withheld from success. He seeks money damages and injunctive
relief, including preliminary injunctive relief.
By order dated May 11, 2021, the Court dismissed the action without
prejudice because the Plaintiff is barred under 28 U.S.C. Section
1915(g) from filing new civil actions in forma pauperis as a
prisoner unless he is imminent danger of serious physical injury.
On May 17, 2021, the Court received an amended complaint from the
Plaintiff, and on May 26, 2021, the Plaintiff tendered the $402 in
filing fees required to bring a civil action in the Court.
Accordingly, by order dated May 25, 2021, the Court vacated its
prior order of dismissal and judgment and directed the Clerk of
Court to reopen the action.
Discussion
A. Claims asserted on behalf of F.R.E.E. Things Matter
Judge Swain holds she must dismiss any claims brought on behalf of
F.R.E.E. Things Matter. She says an association or other
artificial entity, such as F.R.E.E. Things Matter, cannot appear
pro se in federal court; it can only appear with an attorney.
Moreover, as a pro se litigant, the Plaintiff cannot act on behalf
of another. The Plaintiff does not allege that he is an attorney.
The Judge therefore dismisses any claims brought on behalf of
F.R.E.E. Things Matter without prejudice.
B. Class action
The Plaintiff also seeks to have this matter proceed as a class
action.
Because a nonlawyer cannot bring suit on behalf of others, a pro se
plaintiff cannot act as a class representative, Judge Swain holds.
Because the Plaintiff is not an attorney, he may not represent any
party other than himself. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's request
that this matter proceed as a class action is denied.
C. Claims on Plaintiff's behalf
The Court dismisses any claims Plaintiff may be asserting on his
own behalf. The Court liberally construes Plaintiff's factual
allegations and repeated references to the ADA as asserting claims
that Defendants discriminated against him based on a disability or
failed to accommodate a disability when they refused to correct
what Plaintiff maintains was an incorrect statement about who filed
the first case regarding what Plaintiff refers to as the "Trump
Policy."
Judge Swain construes the Plaintiff's allegations as attempting to
assert a claim under Title III of the ADA. First, the Judge finds
that the Plaintiff fails to allege any facts suggesting that he has
a disability as defined by the ADA. Second, although the Plaintiff
cites Title III, he fails to allege any facts suggesting that the
Defendant -- a network news program and an on-air reporter -- meet
the definition of a "public accommodation" under the Title III.
And even if the Plaintiff was disabled under the ADA and Defendants
were covered by the statute, the Plaintiff has failed to allege
that anyone, let alone any of the Defendants, discriminated against
him on the basis of any disability or failed to accommodate a
disability. The Judge therefore dismisses any claims under the ADA
that Plaintiff may be asserting on his own behalf for failure to
state a claim on which relief may be granted.
D. Supplemental Jurisdiction
Having dismissed the federal claims over which the Court has
original jurisdiction, Judge Swain declines to exercise the Court's
supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims the Plaintiff
may be asserting.
E. Leave to Amend is Denied
District courts generally grant a pro se plaintiff leave to amend a
complaint to cure its defects, but leave to amend may be denied if
the plaintiff has already been given an opportunity to amend but
has failed to cure the complaint's deficiencies. Because the
defects in the Plaintiff's amended complaint cannot be cured with a
further amendment, Judge Swain declines to grant the Plaintiff
another opportunity to amend.
Conclusion
Judge Swain dismisses claims bought on behalf of Plaintiff Foster
for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. She
also dismisses any claims brought on behalf of F.R.E.E. Things
Matter without prejudice. She declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over any state law claims the Plaintiff may be
asserting.
The Judge denies any request for preliminary injunctive relief as
moot. She certifies under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that any
appeal from the Order would not be taken in good faith, and
therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an
appeal.
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of the Order to the
Plaintiff and note service on the docket.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/v6njfv23 from Leagle.com.
ABM INDUSTRIES: Settlement Entered in Bucio Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 8, 2021, that
ABM Industry Groups, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of ABM
Industries Incorporated and the company entered into a Class Action
Settlement and Release Agreement to settle a consolidated series of
lawsuits known as ABM Industries Overtime Cases (Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco, Case No. JCCP No.
CJC-07-004502 (the "Bucio Case"), on a classwide and representative
basis for $140 million.
On July 7, 2021, ABM Industry Groups, LLC, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of ABM Industries Incorporated, and the Company, entered
into a Class Action Settlement and Release Agreement to settle a
consolidated series of lawsuits known as ABM Industries Overtime
Cases (Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Case
No. JCCP No. CJC-07-004502), on a classwide and representative
basis for $140 million.
The Bucio Case is a certified class action in which plaintiffs
allege that the Company failed to provide legally required meal
periods and make additional premium payments for such meal periods,
pay split shift premiums when owed, and reimburse janitors for
travel expenses.
The first of the consolidated cases was filed on April 7, 2006. On
April 19, 2011, the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
On December 11, 2017, the California Court of Appeal reversed the
denial of class certification in part and ordered the Trial Court
to certify plaintiffs' meal period, travel expense reimbursement,
and split shift claims.
In accordance with the California Court of Appeal's ruling, the
Trial Court certified a class of janitorial employees employed in
California from April 7, 2002 through April 30, 2013 with respect
to plaintiffs' meal period, travel expense reimbursement, and split
shift claims. Plaintiffs also asserted a representative claim for
penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act (PAGA) based on alleged violations of the California Labor
Code, and plaintiffs have argued that this claim continues to the
present.
The parties engaged in mediation in July 2018 and January 2021 and
attended a mandatory settlement conference before Judge Angela M.
Bradstreet in June 2021. Trial was scheduled for July 12, 2021.
Under the terms of the settlement, the Company has agreed to pay
$140 million to resolve the Bucio Case and to obtain a release of
the certified class claims that were asserted in the Bucio Case.
The settlement will also resolve the PAGA claim. The release of the
certified class claims covers the time period from April 7, 2002
through April 30, 2013. The release of the PAGA claim covers the
time period from November 15, 2005 through July 18, 2021.
Any attorneys' fees awarded by the Trial Court and all costs of
notice and claims administration will be paid from the $140 million
settlement fund.
Employees who will be a part of the settlement will receive
payments based on the number of pay periods they worked.
The settlement agreement is contingent upon the approval of the
Trial Court. Plaintiffs will file a motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement. If the settlement is preliminarily approved,
members of the certified class will receive notice of the
settlement and there will be an opportunity for them to object to
the settlement before the Trial Court grants final approval of the
settlement.
No payments will be made to employees until after the settlement is
finally approved by the Trial Court.
ABM Industries Incorporated is a facility services contractor. The
Company provides air conditioning, engineering, janitorial,
lighting, parking, security, and other outsourced facility services
to the commercial, industrial, and institutional customers across
North America. The company is based in New York, New York.
AIR METHODS: Cowen Cross-Appeals Ruling in Breach of Contract Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Randal Cowen, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Cowen, et al. v. Air Methods
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:16-CV-02723-RBJ, in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado - Denver.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 20, 2021, Judge R.
Brooke Jackson granted the Plaintiffs' motions for summary
judgment.
The matter is before the Court on remand from the Tenth Circuit,
which asked Judge Jackson to address a single issue: Whether an
express or implied-in-fact contract exists between the parties. The
Defendants argue that there is, while the Plaintiffs argue that
there is not.
The case is a putative class action brought on behalf of patients,
their legal custodians, or the estates of deceased patients, who
allege that they were charged exorbitant fees by Defendants Air
Methods and Rocky Mountain for medical transport by helicopter. The
Defendants provide helicopter transport to individuals that are
suffering from emergency medical conditions. Both entities are
incorporated in Delaware. Rocky Mountain owns Air Methods, and the
Defendants jointly collect all service fees.
The consolidated Plaintiffs are filing this cross-appeal to review
the decision as to grant order entered by Judge Jackson on a motion
to compel dated June 8, 2020, and a motion to certify class, dated
May 11, 2021.
The appellate case is captioned as Cowen, et al. v. Air Methods
Corporation, et al., Case No. 21-1233, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on June 22, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Docketing statement, transcript order form and entry of
appearance were due on July 6, 2021 for Randal Cowen, Richard
Dequasie, Griff Hughes, Lana Hughes, Keith Kranhold, Yolanda
O'Neale, Dwain Pattillo, Kathleen Pence, Kara Ridley, Sandra Saenz
and Miranda Taylor; and
-- Notice of appearance was due on July 6, 2021 for Air Methods
Corporation, Rocky Mountain Holdings LLC.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants RANDAL COWEN; KEITH KRANHOLD, Executor of the
Estate of Kenneth Kranhold; GRIFF HUGHES; LANA HUGHES; YOLANDA
O'NEALE, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated;
RICHARD DEQUASIE; DWAIN PATTILLO; KATHLEEN PENCE; KARA RIDLEY;
SANDRA SAENZ; and MIRANDA TAYLOR, are represented by:
Richard J. Burke, Esq.
QUANTUM LEGAL
2801 Lakeside Drive
Bannockburn, IL 60015-1211
Telephone: (312) 220-0000
E-mail: richard@qulegal.com
- and -
Abby Caroline Harder, Esq.
Michael D. Plachy, Esq.
LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE
1200 17th Street, Suite 3000
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 623-9000
E-mail: aharder@lrrc.com
Defendants-Appellees AIR METHODS CORPORATION and ROCKY MOUNTAIN
HOLDINGS LLC are represented by:
Christopher Michael Jackson, Esq.
Jessica Smith, Esq.
Matthew J. Smith, Esq.
HOLLAND & HART
555 17th Street, Suite 3200
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 295-8000
ALLIED PILOTS: American Airlines Appeals Ruling in Breach Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs AMERICAN AIRLINES FLOW-THRU PILOTS COALITION, et al.,
filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled
American Airlines FlowThru Pilots Coalition and Gregory R. Cordes,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Allied
Pilots Association and American Airlines, Inc., Case No.
3:15-cv-03125-RS, in the U.S. District Court for Northern
California, San Francisco.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit arises from
the alleged breach of the duty of fair representation in connection
with the representation of employees in the airline industry under
the Railway Labor Act.
The appellate case is captioned as AMERICAN AIRLINES FLOW-THRU
PILOTS COALITION, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated; GAVIN H. MACKENZIE; GREGORY R. CORDES,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION; AMERICAN
AIRLINES, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-16131, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July
7, 2021.
The parties shall meet the following time schedule:
-- Transcript shall be ordered by August 5, 2021;
-- Transcript shall be filed by September 3, 2021;
-- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record shall be
filed on October 8, 2021;
-- Appellees' answering brief and excerpts of record shall be
filed on November 8, 2021; and
-- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
served within 21 days of service of the appellees' brief. Failure
of the appellant to comply with the Time Schedule Order will result
in automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN]
AT&T CORP: Ky. App. Vacates Class Certification in Feltner Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AT&T CORP. AND BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
Appellants v. DONNA FELTNER, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND A CLASS OF
SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS, Appellees, Case No. 2020-CA-1500-ME
(Ky. App.), the Court of Appeals of Kentucky vacates the Franklin
Circuit Court's order granting Appellee Feltner's motion for class
certification.
As part of its vast telecommunications network, AT&T maintains
several outdoor service terminals across the Commonwealth. AT&T's
telecommunications equipment is often located on property owned or
leased by third parties. For AT&T to access and service its
equipment, the company must possess easements on many of these
properties. One such easement is on located Feltner's real
property in New Castle, Kentucky.
The central issue in the case surrounds AT&T's use of a pesticide
known as "Rainbow Weed Killer." To prevent its service terminals
from being damaged and its technicians from being harmed by the
overgrowth of weeds around the terminals, AT&T allowed its
technicians to apply Rainbow Weed Killer to the areas around the
equipment.
In June of 2015, Feltner notified AT&T that several plants in her
garden on her property, which was near AT&T's service terminal,
were dying. AT&T sent Mark Bullock, an area manager in AT&T's
Corporate Environment Health and Safety Field Support division, to
inspect the area. Bullock observed some distressed areas
surrounding AT&T's telephone equipment, but he noticed no areas of
distress in Feltner's garden.
Ms. Feltner contacted the Kentucky Department of Agriculture
regarding the alleged damage to her property from the pesticides
applied by AT&T. Representatives from the Department collected and
analyzed soil samples from Feltner's property and determined that
two active ingredients in Rainbow Weed Killer were in fact present
in the soil. The Department's inspector also observed that the
amount of Rainbow Weed Killer detected was more than was
appropriate for the tested area. As a result of its investigation,
the Department of Agriculture issued two notices of violation to
AT&T: One for failure to obtain a license to use pesticides in
violation of Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 217B.120(17), and one
for failure to use pesticides as directed on their warning label in
violation of KRS 217B.120(2).
On Sept. 15, 2016, Feltner filed a class action lawsuit against
AT&T, alleging that she and a class of similarly situated
individuals had suffered property damage as a result of AT&T's use
of Rainbow Weed Killer. The five-count complaint included claims
against AT&T for nuisance, trespass, negligence, negligence per se,
and strict liability.
Ms. Feltner then moved for class certification, and by order
entered on Nov. 16, 2020, the circuit court granted her
class-certification motion. AT&T appealed.
Analysis
On appeal, AT&T argues that the circuit court abused its discretion
in certifying the class for two main reasons: (1) the proposed
class is an impermissible fail-safe class; and (2) the proposed
class does not meet the requirements under Kentucky Rules of Civil
Procedure (CR) 23.01 and 23.02.
The Court of Appeals explains that Feltner's proposed class
definition was "all real property owners in the Commonwealth of
Kentucky on whose real property Defendants committed trespass,
nuisance and/or negligent property damage due to the unlawful use
of Rainbow Weed Killer pesticides." It must determine whether
membership in the proposed class is "dependent on whether a person
holds a valid legal claim." It holds that the proposed class
definition is fail-safe because it inevitably bases membership on
the merits of each individual's claim.
Ms. Feltner argues that the proposed class definition is akin to
the permissible language in Hensley because the class is defined as
real property owners against whom AT&T "committed trespass,
nuisance, and/or negligent property damage," rather than those
"entitled to compensation" due to the alleged commission of those
torts. However, either variation requires each individual class
member to prove, on the merits, that AT&T committed a tort against
him and that he is entitled to compensation as a result.
As currently articulated, the Court of Appeals opines that whether
an individual is a member of the class is predicated on the
ultimate finding that AT&T committed the torts of trespass,
nuisance, and/or negligent property damage. Therefore, it holds
that this is an impermissible fail-safe class.
Accordingly, the class certification order of the Franklin Circuit
Court is vacated, and the matter is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with the Opinion. Because it vacates the
circuit court's order on this basis, the Court of Appeals does not
reach AT&T's remaining contentions of error. All concur.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 2, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/43nmy89v from Leagle.com.
W. Blaine Early, III -- bearly@stites.com -- Marshall R. Hixson --
mhixson@stites.com -- Lexington, Kentucky.
Marjorie A. Farris -- mfarris@stites.com -- Chadwick A. McTighe --
cmctighe@stites.com -- Louisville, Kentucky.
Clifford J. Zatz -- czatz@crowell.com -- Washington, D.C., BRIEFS
FOR APPELLANTS.
Jasper D. Ward IV -- jasper@jonesward.com -- Alex C. Davis --
alex@jonesward.com -- Sean A. McCarty -- sean@jonesward.com --
Randal A. Strobo -- RSTROBO@STROBOBARKLEY.COM -- Clay A. Barkley --
CBARKLEY@STROBOBARKLEY.COM -- Louisville, Kentucky, BRIEF FOR
APPELLEES.
ATHIRA PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 24 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Athira Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATHA):
(a) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public
offering conducted in September 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering");
and/or (b) between September 18, 2020 and June 17, 2021, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important August 24, 2021
lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Athira securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's IPO and/or 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 Athira class action, go to
https://bit.ly/3iECBmj or 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 24, 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, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuits, the Offering
documents contained and defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the research
conducted by the Company's Chief Executive Officer and President,
Leen Kawas, was tainted by Kawas' scientific misconduct, including
the manipulation of key data through the altering of Western blot
images; (2) this purported research was foundational to Athira's
efforts to develop treatments for Alzheimer's because it laid the
biological groundwork that Athira was using in its approach to
treating Alzheimer's; (3) as a result, Athira's intellectual
property and product development for the treatment of Alzheimer's
was based on invalid research; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Athira's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Athira class action, go to
http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rosenlegal.com%2Fcases-register-2111.html or call
Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
BA SPORTS: Silver Suit Seeks to Extend Class Cert Filing Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC SILVER, and ALEXANDER
HILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. BA SPORTS NUTRITION, LLC Case No. 3:20-cv-00633-SI (N.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their
motion to extend the deadline for the filing of the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3, the Plaintiffs Marc Silver and
Alexander Hill respectfully request that the Court vacate the
deadline for the filing of their Motion for Class Certification or,
in the alternative, extend the deadline for a period of at least 90
days:
-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is currently
due July 23, 2021;
-- the Defendant's opposition is due August 27, 2021;
-- Plaintiffs' reply is due September 10, 2021;
-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is currently
scheduled to be heard October 1, 2021.
BA Sports manufactures sports drinks.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 9, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hOIEWd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Counsel for the Plaintiffs Marc Silver, Alexander Hill, and the
Proposed Class, are:
Laurence D. King, Esq.
Maia C. Kats, Esq.
Kathleen A. Herkenhoff, Esq.
Mario M. Choi, Esq.
Donald Hall, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 772-4700
Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
mkats@kaplanfox.com
kherkenhoff@kaplanfox.com
mchoi@kaplanfox.com
dhall@kaplanfox.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
George V. Granade II, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
ggranade@reesellp.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Brooks Must File Class Cert. Bid by Jan. 21, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM NORMAN BROOKS,
III, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 20cv1348-BAS-LL (S.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Linda Lopez entered an order that:
1. The parties must file any joint motion for entry of a
stipulated protective order, which includes the terms of
their agreement for handling confidential documents and
information, on or before July 30, 2021.
2. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings,
or to file additional pleadings shall be filed by August
24, 2021.
3. On September 9, 2021 at 11:30 a.m. PST, the magistrate
judge will hold a telephonic, attorneys-only settlement
conference to discuss the status of settlement
negotiations and discovery.
4. Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated, but class
discovery must be completed by November 19, 2021.
5. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be filed
on or before January 21, 2022.
6. The Parties are ordered to contact the chambers of Judge
Lopez within three 4 days of the Court's ruling on the
motion for class certification to request an order setting
the remainder of the pretrial schedule.
Bank of America, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank
offers saving and current account, investment and financial
services, online banking, and mortgage and non-mortgage loan
facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3z1oCgM at no extra charge.[CC]
BANK OF AMERICA: Frausto Appeals Class Certification Bid Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Irma Frausto filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled IRMA FRAUSTO, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01983-LB, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 25, 2021, the Hon.
Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order denying the plaintiff's motion
to certify the proposed classes:
"All persons who worked for Defendant Bank of America, National
Association in California as a non-exempt employee at any time
during the period beginning on February 22, 2014 and ending
when
the Court grants class certification, but expressly excluding
therefrom any individuals who, as of the date the Court grants
class certification, (a) have filed their own separate action
as
a named plaintiff alleging any of the same claims alleged by
Plaintiffs, (b) have opted into a collective action or are
class
members in a certified class action against Defendant alleging
any of the same claims alleged by Plaintiffs, and/or (c) have
previously released all claims against the Defendant being
alleged by Plaintiffs."
In its earlier class-certification order, the court narrowed the
class definition and certified the 16 following classes: (1) for
the off-the-clock claim, (a) all Treasury Services Advisors (in
call centers) and (b) all Assistant Managers (in financial
centers); and (2) for the meal-and-rest-breaks claims, all Treasury
Services Advisors (in call centers).
The court stayed the case to allow the parties to mediate their
dispute. After the parties did not resolve the case, Bank of
America moved for reconsideration of the class-certification order
generally on the ground that by narrowing the class, the court
certified classes that the plaintiff never advanced, either by way
of a theory of liability or through evidence. The court granted
reconsideration. The court held a hearing on June 17, 2021. All
parties consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
section 636 and do not contest the court's jurisdiction under the
Class Action Fairness Act.
The plaintiff's main claims are for off-the-clock work and missed
meal-and-rest-breaks, and they also raise claims predicated on
these claims: failure to pay final wages on time, failure to
provide accurate wage-and-hour statements, and unfair business
practices under the UCL. They moved to certify classes for all
claims.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the June 25 order entered by
Judge Beeler pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f).
The appellate case is captioned as Irma Frausto v. Bank of America,
NA, Case No. 21-80073, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 1, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner IRMA FRAUSTO, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Robert Dart, Esq.
Nicol Hajjar, Esq.
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Defendant-Respondent BANK OF AMERICA, NA is represented by:
Matthew Kane, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 315-8200
E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com
- and -
Sylvia Kim, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 844-9944
E-mail: skim@mcguirewoods.com
CHS INC: Seeds and Chemicals Price Fixing Lawsuits Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHS Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 8, 2021, for the quarterly period ended
May 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend several class
action suits related to price fixing of seeds and crop protection
chemicals.
Between January 8, 2021, and March 16, 2021, a total of 21 putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Courts for the District of Idaho, the Southern District of
Illinois, the District of Kansas, the District of Minnesota and the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania naming the company and several
other crop protection manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers as
defendants and alleging that the defendants violated various
federal and state laws, including antitrust, unfair competition,
consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws by conspiring to
maintain supracompetitive prices in seeds and crop protection
chemicals, such as fungicides, herbicides and insecticides ("Crop
Inputs"), and to engage in a group boycott intended to prevent
companies utilizing electronic sales platforms from competing in
the Crop Inputs retail sales market, thereby harming farmers.
As of May 31, 2021, an additional six putative class action
lawsuits, asserting the same allegations against the same
defendants, were filed in the United States District Courts listed
above.
On June 8, 2021, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered that all of the pending lawsuits be consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
CHS said, "It remains too early in the litigation to evaluate the
likelihood of any particular outcome or of any estimate of the
amount or range of potential loss."
CHS Inc. is a diversified company that provides grain, food,
agronomy and energy resources to businesses and consumers on a
global scale. As a cooperative, the company is owned by farmers,
ranchers and member cooperatives across the United States. The
company is based in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota.
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.
Churchill Capital Corp IV (NYSE:CCIV)
Investors Affected: January 11, 2021 - February 22, 2021
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Churchill Capital Corp IV. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Lucid was not prepared to
deliver vehicles by spring of 2021; (2) Lucid was projecting a
production of 557 vehicles in 2021 instead of the 6,000 vehicles
touted in the run-up to the merger with Churchill; and (3) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/churchill-capital-corp-iv-loss-submission-form/?id=17551&from=1
Ubiquiti Inc. (NYSE:UI)
Investors Affected: January 11, 2021 - March 20, 2021
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Ubiquiti Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants 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.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/ubiquiti-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17551&from=1
Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:SPCE)
Investors Affected: October 26, 2019 - April 30, 2021
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) for accounting purposes, Social
Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp.'s ("SCH") warrants were required
to be treated as liabilities rather than equities; (ii) Virgin
Galactic had deficient disclosure controls and procedures and
internal control over financial reporting; (iii) as a result, the
Company improperly accounted for SCH warrants that were outstanding
at the time of the business combination; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/virgin-galactic-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17551&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on July 12 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.
Churchill Capital Corp IV (NYSE:CCIV)
Class Period: January 11, 2021 - February 22, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 30, 2021
The complaint alleges that during the class period Churchill
Capital Corp IV made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Lucid was not prepared to
deliver vehicles by spring of 2021; (2) Lucid was projecting a
production of 557 vehicles in 2021 instead of the 6,000 vehicles
touted in the run-up to the merger with Churchill; and (3) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
Learn about your recoverable losses in CCIV:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/churchill-capital-corp-iv-loss-submission-form?id=17553&from=1
Contextlogic Inc. (NASDAQ:WISH)
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.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 16, 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.
Learn about your recoverable losses in WISH:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/contextlogic-inc-loss-submission-form?id=17553&from=1
Provention Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRVB)
Class Period: November 2, 2020 - April 8, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2021
The complaint alleges that throughout 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.
Learn about your recoverable losses in PRVB:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/provention-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?id=17553&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]
CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: October 6 Claim Form Submission Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
CLOVIS ONCOLOGY, INC., PATRICK J. MAHAFFY, and ERLE T. MAST
Defendants.
Case No. 1:18-cv-02381-CMA
SUMMARY DISTRIBUTION PLAN NOTICE OF CLOVIS FAIR FUND
TO:
Individuals and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares
of Clovis Oncology, Inc. ("Clovis" or the "Company") common stock
during the period of July 7, 2015 through November 13, 2015,
inclusive (the "Relevant Period") and suffered a loss according to
the Distribution Plan (the "Plan"). You may be eligible for a
Distribution Payment from the Clovis Fair Fund
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.
YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR RECOVERY FROM THE CLOVIS FAIR FUND.
THIS NOTICE CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION
REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS.
What this case is About?
On September 18, 2018, the Commission filed a complaint (the
"Complaint") against Clovis Oncology, Inc. ("Clovis") and Patrick
J. Mahaffy ("Mahaffy"), its Chief Executive Officer, and Erle T.
Mast ("Mast"), its former Chief Financial Officer (collectively,
the "Defendants"). The Complaint alleged that, over a four-month
period starting in July 2015, Clovis and Mahaffy misled investors
about how well Clovis' flagship lung cancer drug Rociletinib worked
compared to another drug. Clovis raised approximately $298 million
in a public stock offering in July 2015 but saw its stock price
collapse in November 2015 after disclosing that the effectiveness
rate was actually 28 percent, versus the 60 percent efficacy figure
that had been touted in the company's investor presentations, press
releases, and SEC filings. The company stopped development on the
drug in May 2016. The Commission alleged, in part, that Clovis
violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and
Rules 12b-20 and 13a-11 thereunder.
The Defendants were ordered to pay a total of $20,804,145 in
disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and penalties to the
Commission. The funds were deposited in an interest-bearing account
at the United States Department of Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal
Service.
On July 2, 2019, the Court established a Fair Fund ("Fair Fund"),
pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, so
the penalties paid, along with the disgorgement and prejudgment
interest, can be distributed to investors harmed by the Defendants'
conduct described in the Complaint. The Court also appointed Miller
Kaplan Arase LLP as the Tax Administrator to fulfill the tax
obligations of the Fair Fund.
On December 2, 2019, Epiq Systems ("Epiq") was appointed as the
Distribution Agent of the Fair Fund to assist in overseeing the
administration of the distribution of the Fair Fund.
The Order Approving Distribution Plan for the Fair Fund was entered
on May, 19, 2021 and provides for the distribution of the Clovis
Fair Fund, plus interest, less taxes, investment fees, and fees and
expenses of tax and fund administration ("Net Available Fair Fund")
to Eligible Claimants, as defined by the Plan.
Who is Eligible for Compensation?
If you purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Clovis common
stock during the period from July 7, 2015 through November 13,
2015, are not excluded from the Fair Fund, and suffered a loss
according to the Distribution Plan (the "Plan"), you may be
eligible for a payment from the Clovis Fair Fund. If you previously
submitted an authorized claim in the related Class Action Medina v.
Clovis Oncology, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-2546-RM-MEH
(D. Colo. Aug. 4, 2017) you do not need to submit a Claim Form to
participate in the Fair Fund unless you wish to modify your claim.
Any claim modifications must be postmarked or received on or before
October 6, 2021. If you purchased Clovis Common stock during the
Relevant Period and your claim was unauthorized, you must submit
documentation to resolve any deficiency so that it is postmarked or
received on or before October 6, 2021. If you filed an exclusion
from the Class Notice portion of the Class Action and would like to
participate in this Fair Fund, you will need to submit a Claim Form
so that it is postmarked or received on or before October 6, 2021.
The methodology used to determine eligibility and calculate
Distribution Payments are set forth in the Plan.
How to Obtain a Plan Notice and Claim Form.
Class Action Authorized Claimants do not need to submit a Claim
Form to participate in the Fair Fund but may wish to modify their
claim. Class Action Unauthorized Claimants will be required to
submit information in order to cure deficient claims. Potentially
Eligible Claimants that requested exclusion from the related Class
Action must submit a Claim Form. Claim Forms, as well as the
Distribution Plan Notice and other information, may be obtained
from the Fair Fund website at www.ClovisFairFundDistribution.com,
by calling a toll-free 833-991-0978, emailing
Info@ClovisFairFundDistribution.com , or writing to Clovis Fair
Fund, P.O. Box 5270, Portland, OR 97208-5270. Claim Forms and all
requested documentation must be mailed or submitted to the address
above on or before October 6, 2021.
http://www.epiqglobal.com[GN]
DARIOHEALTH CORP: Bylaws Related Putative Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
DarioHealth Corp. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 9, 2021 that the
company continues to defend a putative class action suit related to
the company's bylaws.
In January 2021, a purported stockholder commenced a putative class
action, or the Action, on behalf of himself and other stockholders
similarly situated, against DarioHealth Corp., or the Company, and
its directors for declaratory relief, alleging that a provision in
the Company's bylaws allowing directors to remove directors
violates Delaware Corporate Law.
Specifically, Article 3, Section 3.3 of the Company's bylaws
contains a provision that permits the Board of Directors to remove
a director with or without cause.
On July 8, 2021, the Delaware Chancery Court issued an order, with
the consent of the Company and the plaintiff in the Action,
invalidating the offending provision, striking it from the
Company's bylaws and deeming it null and void and of no legal
effect.
As a result of the foregoing, the Company believes that the Action
will be resolved in its entirety.
DarioHealth Corp., a digital health company, develops and
commercializes patented and proprietary technologies providing
consumers with laboratory-testing capabilities using smartphones
and other mobile devices in the United States, Europe, Australia,
and Canada. The company is based in New York, New York.
DAVE & BUSTER'S: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, York Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
NATASHA YORK and GERY PEARSON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DAVE & BUSTER'S, INC. and
DAVE & BUSTER'S MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-01130-JJT (D. Ariz., June 29, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arizona Minimum Wage Act by failing to pay the Plaintiffs and all
similarly situated workers their earned minimum wages.
According to the complaint, the Defendants pay their tipped
employees, including servers and bartenders, below the minimum wage
rate by taking advantage of the tip-credit provisions of the FLSA
and, in Arizona, under the AMWA. As a result of these violations,
Defendants have lost the ability to use the tip credit and
therefore must compensate Plaintiffs and all similarly situated
workers at the full minimum wage rate, unencumbered by the tip
credit, and for all hours worked, the suit says.
Plaintiff York worked for Defendants at the Dave & Buster's
location in Glendale, Arizona as a waitress from approximately
August 2019 to February 2020.
Plaintiff Pearson worked for Defendants at the Dave & Buster's
location in El Paso, Texas as a waitress from approximately
February 2016 to March 2020.
The Defendants operate a nationwide chain of restaurants with the
name "Dave & Buster's."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
- and -
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Building, Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
DAYTONA TRIMMINGS: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daytona Trimming. The
case is styled as Eugene Duncan, for himself and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Daytona Trimming, Case No.
1:21-cv-03981 (E.D.N.Y., July 14, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Daytona Trimming is a fabric Shop, arts & crafts store, and
knitting store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawfirm.net
DIDI GLOBAL: Block & Leviton Reminds of September 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton on July 12 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Didi Global Inc. (NYSE: DIDI) and certain of
its officers for securities fraud. Investors who purchased shares
between June 27, 2021 and July 6, 2021 and lost money are
encouraged to contact the firm to learn more about how they might
recover those losses. For more details, visit
https://www.blockleviton.com/cases/didi.
What is this all about?
Didi Global operates a major Beijing-based ride-hailing company
known as Didi Chuxing. On July 2, 2021, China's internet regulator,
the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), announced that it had
launched a cybersecurity review of the Didi, accusing the Company
of illegally collecting user data. On July 6, 2021, the regulator
also ordered that the app be removed from Apple's App Store. Didi
will not be able to accept new client registrations until the
investigation is complete. On this news, Didi shares declined
nearly 16.2% from its IPO price of $14 per share, and 28.5% from
its July 1, 2021 close of $16.40 per share, closing at $11.73 per
share on July 7, 2021. Shares continue to trade well below the June
30, 2021 IPO price.
Who is eligible?
Anyone who purchased Didi shares between June 27, 2021 and July 6,
2021 is eligible, whether or not they have sold their investment.
Investors should contact Block & Leviton to learn more.
What should you do next?
The deadline to seek appointment as lead plaintiff is September 7,
2021. A class has not yet been certified, and until a certification
occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to
take no action, you can remain an absent class member.
If you've lost money on your investment, you should contact Block &
Leviton to learn more via our case website, by email at
cases@blockleviton.com, or by phone at (617) 398-5600.
Why should you contact Block & Leviton?
Many law firms have issued releases about this matter; most of
those firms do not actually litigate securities class actions.
Block & Leviton is a law firm that actually litigates cases. We are
dedicated to obtaining significant recoveries on behalf of
defrauded investors through active litigation in the federal courts
across the country. Many of the nation's top institutional
investors hire us to represent their interests. You can learn more
about us at our website, www.blockleviton.com, or call (617)
398-5600 or email cases@blockleviton.com with any questions.
This notice may constitute attorney advertising.
CONTACT:
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin St., Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 398-5600
Email: cases@blockleviton.com
www.blockleviton.com [GN]
FACEBOOK INC: dotStrategy Appeals Class Certification Bid Denial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff dotStrategy Co. filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled dotStrategy Co. v. Facebook, Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00170-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Lead Plaintiff
William F. Doshier and his company dotStrategy Co. sued the social
media giant in Faulkner County Circuit Court on July 10, seeking
punitive damages and restitution for its alleged failure to detect
and filter invalid clicks.
Facebook, the world's largest social media platform, said that it
had deleted 583 million fake accounts during the first three months
of 2018. That announcement tipped Mr. Doshier off to "the
widespread extent that fake accounts populate the Facebook
platform," according to his 87-page complaint filed by Little Rock
attorney David Hodges.
Mr. Doshier, who teaches marketing classes at the University of
Central Arkansas, says Facebook should have instituted policies
that detected those fake accounts -- and potentially millions of
others -- sooner.
A doubling of Facebook's review staff to 20,000 and artificial
intelligence systems capable of filtering fake accounts could have
been deployed "a long time ago . . . but, Facebook chose not to,"
the complaint states.
According to the lawsuit, Facebook estimates that fake accounts on
their social network make up about 3 to 4 percent of users, or
about 66 million accounts. "Facebook's self-serve advertisers are
not interested in increasing fake traffic from fake Facebook
accounts," the complaint states. "Facebook knew or should have
known that it has overbilled and continues to overbill Doshier and
class members for fake traffic that is generated from fake accounts
on Facebook."
The proposed class seeks compensatory and punitive damages for
claims of breach of contract, fraud and deceptive trade practices
for Facebook's alleged misrepresentation of "the actual number of
genuine accounts on their social network."
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated June
22, 2021, denying its motion to certify class.
The appellate case is captioned as dotStrategy Co. v. Facebook,
Inc., Case No. 21-80076, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 7, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner DOTSTRATEGY CO., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Thomas C. Bright, Esq.
Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
CERA LLP
595 Market Street, Suite 1350
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 777-2230
E-mail: tbright@cerallp.com
tbright@cerallp.com
Defendant-Respondent FACEBOOK, INC. is represented by:
Kathryn Cahoy, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
3000 El Camino Real
5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Telephone: (650) 632-4700
E-mail: kcahoy@cov.com
- and -
Simon J. Frankel, Esq.
Sean Franklin Howell, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
415 Mission Street, Suite 5400
San Francisco, CA 94105-2533
Telephone: (415) 591-7052
E-mail: sfrankel@cov.com
showell@cov.com
- and -
Ashley Margaret Simonsen, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4643
Telephone: (424) 332-4800
E-mail: asimonsen@cov.com
FACEBOOK INC: Trump Says Legal Action Victorious for Constitution
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Cohen, writing for Politico, reports that Former President
Donald Trump on July 11 expressed optimism that his legal action
against social media companies will be a victory for the
Constitution.
"They are immune so many different things, but they're not immune
from the lawsuit," he said of Silicon Valley during a
conspiracy-laden interview on "Sunday Morning Futures With Maria
Bartiromo" on the Fox News Channel.
"What they have done is such a violation of the Constitution," he
said, "a violation like we've never seen before. They take me down,
they take all conservative voices down or most of them. They find
them and they take them down. It's a disgrace."
The former president filed a series of class-action lawsuits on
July 7 accusing leading social media companies of illegally
censoring him.
Experts in free-speech law have expressed skepticism that Trump's
legal actions will succeed under current law, a notion Trump
rejected. "A lot of legal scholars are saying it's about time," he
said.
In his interview on July 11, Trump blamed the actions of Facebook,
Twitter and others on efforts to destroy him and his supporters.
"They work with Democrats within government and, frankly, outside
of government. They work with the Democrats," adding: "It should be
a campaign contribution, the largest ever made."
Feeding off Bartiromo's sympathetic questions, Trump repeatedly and
emphatically reiterated his oft-stated notion that the 2020
presidential election was stolen from him ("a terrible blot on our
country"), spouting baseless theories about Georgia, Arizona and
New Hampshire and other states he lost. He also defended his
behavior related to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol — and
praised his supporters and their conduct that day.
"These were peaceful people, these were great people," he said,
echoing his rhetoric about participants at the 2017 white
supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va.
inflating the crowd figures from the rally Jan. 6 that preceded the
attack on the Capitol, Trump said: "There was such love at that
rally, you had over a million people. They were there for one
reason, the rigged election."
At the end of the interview, Trump declined to say whether he will
run for president in 2024. [GN]
FACEBOOK INC: Trump Says Social Media Firms Not Immune From Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Olafimihan Oshin, writing for The Hill, reports that Former
President Trump said on July 11 that tech companies that banned him
from social media platforms are "not immune" from his lawsuit
against them.
During a telephone interview on Fox News, Trump told host Maria
Bartiromo on "Sunday Morning Futures" that the reason why he's
joining a class-action lawsuit against Twitter, Facebook, and
Google is to fight for his freedom of speech.
"[T]hey're taking away your freedom of speech. They are taking away
your right to speak. They're taking away everything. And they get
powers. They have a Section 230, it's called, and that gives them
immunity. That gives them protection," Trump told Bartiromo.
Trump reiterated his notion that tech companies censored
conservatives and that banning him from those platforms was a
violation of the Constitution.
"I mean, they -- they're immune from so many different things. But
they're not immune from this lawsuit, because what they have done
is such a violation of the Constitution, a violation like we have
never seen before. You look at -- they take me down," Trump said.
"They take all conservative voices down, or most of them. If they
find them, they take them down."
Trump, who was permanently banned from Twitter, called the social
media platforms' recent moves "sick motivation."
"Well, the motivation is a sick motivation, Trump said. "And, when
you look at it, they allow Hamas. They allow countries and
dictators that want to destroy everything and everybody and that
are doing tremendous harm to their countries, killing people by the
thousands. They're allowed."
"But a president of the United States that has a following like
nobody's seen before, we're not allowed to do that. And so we have
to use other methods, until this lawsuit is -- it's going to wind
its way through the courts. I think it's going to be very
successful."
Trump announced on July 7 that he filed a class-action lawsuit
against Facebook, Twitter, Google, and their respective CEOs over
allegations of censorship. [GN]
FRANCISCO VALADEZ: FLSA Collective Gets Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ROLANDO
MOSHAN-MARTINEZ, et al., on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated persons, v. FRANCISCO VALADEZ, JR. LLC et al.,
Case No. 5:20-cv-000205-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Louise Wood
Flanagan entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion and conditionally
certifies this action as a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) as
follows:
"Persons who traveled to North Carolina with an H-2A visa
issued for work for Francisco Valadez, Jr., LLC and who
performed work for the Valadez Defendants at any time
between May 18, 2017 and the date of final judgment in
this action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);"
2. authorizing the Notice for distribution in English and
Spanish to potential opt-in Plaintiffs by U.S. mail within
two weeks after Defendants have provided the contact
information requested in the Motion, and authorizing the
information in the Notice to be distributed by text,
WhatsApp, Facebook, website posting, and radio in Mexico;
3. directing the Defendants to post the notice in English and
Spanish at all worksites and at all employer-provided
housing for H-2A farmworkers under the ownership or
control of any of the Defendants, and orders the Valadez
Defendants to provide the notice to current employees with
their paychecks, within two weeks of entry of this Order;
4. approving the Consent to Join Form for distribution to the
putative members of the collective action. The date
limiting the preliminary joinder of opt-in Plaintiffs
filing Consent to Sue forms shall be six months from the
date on which the complete addresses and names of putative
class members are produced by Defendants in accordance
with this Order; and
5. directing the Defendants to provide the Plaintiffs with
the full names, date(s) of employment, employer ID,
passport number, U.S. and Mexico address, home, cell and
WhatsApp numbers (U.S. and Mexico), location of work
performed for the Valadez Defendants, and date of birth of
all putative collective action members. This production
shall be made within two weeks of the entry of this Order.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xNC6g2 at no extra charge.[CC]
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on July 11 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.
Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:FREQ)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/frequency-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17548&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 2, 2021
Class Period: November 16, 2020 - March 22, 2021
Allegations against FREQ include that: the Company's Phase 2a trial
results failed to live up to the Company's expectations as the
results revealed no discernable difference between FX-322 and the
placebo. In spite of the disappointing results, the Company
continued to conduct the Phase 2a study while releasing positive
statements in earnings calls, press releases, SEC filings, and
pharmaceutical presentations about FX-322's potential. These
statements materially misled the market and artificially inflated
the value of Frequency's common stock.
RLX Technology Inc. (NYSE:RLX)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/rlx-technology-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17548&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 9, 2021
This lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased, or otherwise
acquired, RLX American Depository Shares pursuant or traceable to
the documents issued in connection with RLX's January 2021 initial
public stock offering.
Allegations against RLX include that: the Company's then-existing
exposure to China's ongoing campaign to establish a national
standard for e-cigarettes, which would bring them into line with
ordinary cigarette regulations, and that RLX's reported financials
were not nearly as robust as the offering materials projected, nor
were they indicative of future results. As a result, investors
purchased RLX shares at artificially inflated prices.
Rocket Companies, Inc. (NYSE:RKT)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/rocket-companies-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17548&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 30, 2021
Class Period: February 25, 2021 - May 5, 2021
Allegations against RKT include that: (a) Rocket's gain on sale
margins were contracting at the highest rate in two years as a
result of increased competition among mortgage lenders, an
unfavorable shift toward the lower margin Partner Network operating
segment and compression in the price spread between the primary and
secondary mortgage markets; (b) Rocket was engaged in a price war
and battle for market share with its primary competitors in the
wholesale market, which was further compressing margins in Rocket's
Partner Network operating segment; (c) the adverse trends
identified above were accelerating and, as a result, Rocket's gain
on sale margins were on track to plummet at least 140 basis points
in the first six months of 2021; (d) as a result of the above, the
favorable market conditions that had preceded the Class Period and
allowed Rocket to achieve historically high gain on sale margins
had vanished as the Company's gain on sale margins had returned to
levels not seen since the first quarter of 2019; (e) rather than
remaining elevated due to surging demand, Rocket's Company-wide
gain-on-sale margins had fallen materially below recent historical
averages; and (f) as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business operations and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: Small Sues Over Vehicles' Defective Tail Lamps
---------------------------------------------------------------
RHONDA SMALL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 9:21-cv-81146 (S.D. Fla.,
June 29, 2021) is a consumer class action that arises out of a
defect in the tail lamp assembly of GM Model Year 2017-2019 Yukon,
Yukon XL, Yukon Denali, and Yukon Denali XL vehicles, in violation
of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The complaint asserts that the presence of defect in the tail lamp
assembly of the Class vehicles whereby the tail lamps or particular
components within the tail lamp housing or assembly become
inoperative is a serious safety defect in that failure of the tail
lamp assembly results in brake lights failing to illuminate and
increased risk of rear end collision. The Defendant has known or
should have known about this issue for years but has not yet taken
any action to remedy it, the suit says.
As a result of Defendant's alleged unfair and deceptive business
practices, owners of Class Vehicles, including Plaintiff, have
suffered an injury in fact and an ascertainable loss of money
and/or property and have otherwise been harmed by GM's conduct,
says the complaint.
General Motors LLC designs, manufactures and sells automobiles
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Freidin, Esq.
Jonathan E. Freidin, Esq.
FREIDIN BROWN, P.A.
One Biscayne Tower
2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3100
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 371-3666
E-mail: jf@fblawyers.net
pf@fblawyers.net
pleadings@fblawyers.net
- and -
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
- and -
Cam Justice, Esq.
Adam Breit, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW
8551 W. Sunrise Blvd., Suite 300
Plantation, FL 33322
Telephone: (954) 515-5656
E-mail: cjustice@justiceinjurylawyer.com
abreit@justiceinjurylawyer.com
justicepleadings@justiceinjurylawyer.com
GOOGLE LLC: Singh Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GURMINDER SINGH,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
GOOGLE, LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-03734-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following Class and
naming Plaintiff as Class representative:
"All persons and entities throughout the United States who
advertised through Google's AdWords program and paid for
clicks on their Google AdWords advertisement(s) at any time
since June 1, 2012 (the "Class Period"), where such clicks
originated from Google's Display Network."
Excluded from the above Class are the following individuals
and/or entities: the Court, and all Court personnel involved
in the handling of his case; Defendant, Google, LLC, f/k/a
Google, Inc. and its parent company, subsidiaries,
affiliates, officers, directors, and any entity in which
Google has a controlling interest; all individuals who timely
elect to be excluded from this proceeding using the correct
protocol for opting out; and any attorneys or other employees
of any law firms hired, retained, and/or appointed by or on
behalf of the named Plaintiff to represent him and/or any
proposed Class members or proposed Class in this lawsuit.
The Plaintiff also moves, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), for the
appointment of Miller Shah LLP and Edgar Law Firm LLC as Class
Counsel.
The Plaintiff asserts claims for: (a) violations of the Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), and (b) the False Advertising Law
("FAL").
Google is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 9,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B8e8Ov
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiff Singh on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, are:
James C. Shah, Esq.
Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
San Francisco, CA 94133
Telephone: (856) 858-1770
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com
kctang@millershah.com
- and -
James E. Miller, Esq.
65 Main Street
Chester, CT 06412
Telephone: (860) 526-1100
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jemiller@millershah.com
- and -
Chiharu G. Sekino, Esq.
1230 Columbia Street, Suite 1140
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone (619) 235-2416
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: csekino@millershah.com
- and -
John F. Edgar, Esq.
EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC
2600 Grand Blvd. Suite 440
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone (816) 531-0033
Facsimile: (816) 531-3322
E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com
GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Roberts Hits Illegal Biometric Data Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOCELYN ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of herself all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL,
LLC Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00750 (S.D. Ill., June 29, 2021)
arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.
The Plaintiff seeks damages and other legal and equitable remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in collecting,
storing and using her and other similarly situated individuals'
biometric identifiers and biometric information without obtaining
informed written consent or providing the requisite data retention
and destruction policies, in direct violation of BIPA.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of ABBCO, a regional company
providing facility maintenance and janitorial services to clients
throughout the Midwest, including Defendant. While staffed at the
Centralia facility, the Plaintiff claims that she was required to
place her fingers on a handprint scanner, which scanned, collected
and stored her handprint each time she "clocked" in and out as part
of the timekeeping system.
Graphic Packaging International, LLC provides packaging solutions.
The Company offers paperboard, laminations, coatings, bags, labels,
and beverage packaging systems.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
KEOGH LAW, LTD.
55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 726-1092
Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
E-mail: wsweetnam@keoghlaw.com
HAI TRIM INC: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hai Trim Inc. The
case is styled as Eugene Duncan, for himself and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Hai Trim Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-03983 (E.D.N.Y., July 14, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hai Trim & Feathers -- https://www.haitrim.com/ -- is New York
City's leading supplier of top quality craft materials from
feathers, trimmings, appliqués, rhinestones, and a lot more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawfirm.net
HOME POINT: Klein Law Firm Reminds of August 20 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on July 11 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.
Contextlogic Inc. (NASDAQ:WISH)
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.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 16, 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.
Learn about your recoverable losses in WISH :
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/contextlogic-inc-loss-submission-form?id=17547&from=1
Home Point Capital Inc. (NASDAQ:HMPT)
This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Home Point common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's January 29, 2021
initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 20, 2021
During the class period, Home Point Capital Inc. allegedly made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Home Point's aggressive expansion of its broker
partners would dramatically increase the Company's expenses; (ii)
the mortgage industry was anticipating industry-wide decreased
gain-on-sale margins as a result of rising interest rates in 2021
and Home Point would be subject to the same competitive pressures;
(iii) accordingly, the Company had overstated its business and
financial prospects; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents
were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state
information required to be stated therein.
Learn about your recoverable losses in HMPT :
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/home-point-capital-inc-loss-submission-form?id=17547&from=1
DraftKings Inc. f/k/a Diamond Eagle Acquisition Corp.
(NASDAQ:DKNG)
Class Period: December 23, 2019 - June 15, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 31, 2021
The complaint alleges DraftKings Inc. f/k/a Diamond Eagle
Acquisition Corp. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) SBTech Global
Limited ("SBTech"), a company acquired by DraftKings, had a history
of unlawful operations; (ii) accordingly, DraftKings' merger with
SBTech exposed the Company to dealings in black-market gaming;
(iii) the foregoing increased the Company's regulatory and criminal
risks with respect to these transactions; (iv) as a result of all
the foregoing, the Company's revenues were, in part, derived from
unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; (v) accordingly, the
benefits of the Business Combination were overstated; and (vi) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
Learn about your recoverable losses in DKNG :
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/draftkings-inc-f-k-a-diamond-eagle-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?id=17547&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]
HOME POINT: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 20 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Home Point Capital Inc. (NASDAQ:
HMPT) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's January 29, 2021,
initial public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"), of the important
August 20, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Home Point securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's IPO 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 Home Point class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2110.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 20, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. 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, the Offering
documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained
untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading and was not
prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing its
preparation. Specifically, the Offering documents made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Home
Point's aggressive expansion of its broker partners would
dramatically increase Home Point's expenses; (2) the mortgage
industry was anticipating industry-wide decreased gain-on-sale
margins as a result of rising interest rates in 2021 and Home Point
would be subject to the same competitive pressures; (3)
accordingly, Home Point had overstated its business and financial
prospects; and (4) as a result, the Offering documents were
materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information
required to be stated therein. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Home Point class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2110.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
CONTACT: 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]
HOUSE OF CB: Brooks' Bid for Default Judgment Denied W/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VALERIE BROOKS, Plaintiff v. HOUSE OF CB USA, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-1606-JAM-JDP (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Jeremy D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's
motion for default judgment.
The case is before the Court on the Plaintiff's motion for default
judgment. In the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, she
claims that the Defendant was served by personal service upon its
registered agent.
However, Judge Peterson finds that the Plaintiff's proof of service
reflects substituted service on "Kalra Ramos, Person in Charge" at
an unidentified facility at 8448 Melrose Ave., West Hollywood,
California, with service by mail to the same location. The
Plaintiff was required either (1) to serve the Defendant's agent at
the registered address, or (2) to serve a person in charge at that
same address and then mail a copy of the summons and complaint to
the agent at that address. The California Secretary of State's
website shows that the Defendant's authorized agent for service is
Ian Ashton, whose in-state address is 189 The Grove Dr., Los
Angeles, California. Hence, the Plaintiff has not shown that he
properly served the Defendant.
Additionally, Judge Peterson finds that the Plaintiff's motion for
default judgment does not mention, let alone analyze, the
controlling standards for the motion set out in Eitel v. McCool,
782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Under Eitel, before
granting a motion for default judgment, the court must consider:
(1) possible prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of the
plaintiff's claim; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the
sum of money at stake; (5) the possibility of a factual dispute;
(6) whether the default was potentially due to excusable neglect;
and (7) the general policy that cases be decided on the merits.
In considering these factors, "the factual allegations of the
complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be
taken as true." In the case, the Plaintiff seeks resolution of the
case as a class action, but the class has not been certified. The
Plaintiff seeks $5 million in damages, but she has not provided
evidence to explain or justify that amount. Hence, beyond the lack
of proper service, the Eitel factors support a denial of the
Plaintiff's motion.
Accordingly, Judge Peterson set aside the clerk's entry of the
Defendant's default and denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's
motion for default judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ynt546cm from Leagle.com.
INDUS CO: Seeks August 9 Extension for Class Cert. Bid Opposition
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting a 30
day extension of the deadline to file its Memorandum in Opposition
to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification.
The Plaintiff has consented to this Motion. Defendant acknowledges
the prior two requests to extend this deadline. However, this third
request is due to unfortunate and unforeseen circumstances. On
Saturday, July 3, 2021, Defendant Indus's Director, Andrew Finley,
unexpectedly passed away. Due to the tragic and sudden
circumstances, Defendant requires the additional time for
bereavement and to then address issues related to its response
here. This extension would cause Defendant's memorandum to be due
on or before August 9, 2021.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 9, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VCNxsv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the 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
Attorneys for Defendants, Riverview Hotel, LLC and Indus Companies,
Inc.
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
INTREPID INSURANCE: Monday Restaurants Appeals Case Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Monday Restaurants, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled MONDAY RESTAURANTS LLC, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. INTREPID
INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a INTREPID DIRECT INSURANCE, an Iowa
Corporation; and W.R. BERKLEY CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation,
Case No. 4:20-cv-00767-SNLJ, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 3, 2020, the
lawsuit alleges that despite the provision of business income
coverage in their policies, the Defendants are publicly refusing to
comply with their obligation to pay for business income losses and
covered expenses incurred by policyholders as a result of the
physical loss of and damage to their insured property arising from
the COVID-19 pandemic.
As a result of the pandemic and to protect against its spread, on
March 16, 2020, the White House advised all Americans to "avoid
eating or drinking in bars, restaurants, and food courts."
Defendant W.R. Berkley's CEO, Mr. W.R. Berkley himself, claimed in
an earnings call with financial analysts that the Company's
policies did not cover business losses due to the pandemic; he even
accused lawyers for insureds of trying to take advantage of the
catastrophe. He stated that they "seem to subscribe to the
unfortunate idea of never letting a crisis go to waste."
The Plaintiffs contend that restaurant losses due to the pandemic
are not imagined. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of
themselves and classes and subclasses of restaurant operators that
(a) purchased standard commercial property insurance policies from
Defendants that provide for business income loss and extra expense
coverage and do not exclude coverage for pandemics and (b) have
suffered business income and extra expense losses.
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order dated June 2,
2021, dismissing their second amended complaint against the
Defendant with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as Monday Restaurants, et al. v.
Intrepid Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 21-2462, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on June 30,
2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appendix is due on August 10, 2021;
-- BRIEF OF APPELLANT Andrew Dill, Monday Restaurants, Amy
Varble and Michael Wong is due on August 10, 2021;
-- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Monday Restaurants, on behalf of itself and
all other similarly situated; Andrew Dill, DMD, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated; Amy Varble, DMD, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; and Michael
Wong, DMD, P.C., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
Mickel Montalban Arias, Esq.
Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
ARIAS & OZZELLO
6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Telephone: (310) 670-1600
- and -
Richard Steven Cornfeld, Esq.
Daniel S. Levy, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD, LLC
1010 Market Street, Suite 1645
Saint Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 241-5799
E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com
dlevy@cornfeldlegal.com
Defendants-Appellees Intrepid Insurance Company, an Iowa
corporation, doing business as Intrepid Direct Insurancy; and
Tri-State Insurance of Minnesota are represented by:
Antonia Ianniello, Esq.
Lisa M. Southerland, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON
1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-0000
Telephone: (202) 429-3000
E-mail: aianniello@steptoe.com
lsoutherland@steptoe.com
- and -
Patrick J. Kenny, Esq.
ARMSTRONG & TEASDALE
7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1800
Saint Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 621-5070
E-mail: pkenny@atllp.com
- and -
Lauren H. Navarro, Esq.
ARMSTRONG & TEASDALE
2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1500
Kansas City, MO 64108-0000
Telephone: (816) 221-3420
E-mail: lnavarro@atllp.com
J.B. HUNT: Suit Seeks to Certify California Resident Drivers Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIE WILLIAMS, LADON
CLINE, AND PAUL CONTRERAS on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., an Arkansas
Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
8:20-cv-01701-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying this case as a class action pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 5 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of the
following class:
all California resident drivers who worked for JB Hunt and
were compensated under 7 the following pay formula: Total
Eligible Activity Pay - (Hourly Rate x All Hours Worked) =
Activity Based Bonus Amnt from 4-year period prior to the
filing of this Complaint to the date of final
disposition;"
2. approving a conference with defense counsel; and
3. authorizing Plaintiffs to send Notice pursuant to Rule 23
(in a form to be approved by the Court after a conference
with defense counsel);
4. appointing Desai Law Firm, P.C., and Aashish Y. Desai and
Adrianne De Castro, as class counsel, and the Plaintiffs
as Class Representatives.
J.B. Hunt is an American transportation and logistics company based
in Lowell, Arkansas. It was founded by Johnnie Bryan Hunt and
Johnelle Hunt in Arkansas on August 10, 1961. By 1983, J.B. Hunt
had grown into the 80th largest trucking firm in the U.S. and
earned $623.47 million in revenue.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated July 9,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iemCLs
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C.
3200 Bristol St., Suite 650
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (949) 614-5830
Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com
adrianne@desai-law.com
JP MORGAN: London Court Set to Decide on Forex Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kirstin Ridley and Iain Withers, writing for Reuters, report that a
specialist London court will decide whether a long-awaited
multi-billion pound class action against some of the world's
biggest banks over alleged foreign exchange rigging can proceed,
after a five-day hearing kicked off on July 12.
JPMorgan (JPM.N), Citigroup (C.N), Barclays (BARC.L), UBS (UBSG.S)
and NatWest (NWG.L), along with Japan's MUFG Bank
[RIC:RIC:MTFGTU.UL], are braced for the first forex class action in
Britain over cartels dubbed "Essex Express" and "Three Way Banana
Split".
The European Commission fined all the lenders apart from UBS, which
had alerted the body to the two cartels, a total of more than 1
billion euros ($1.2 billion) over the matter in 2019.
A similar decision by the Swiss regulator added a further 90
million Swiss francs ($98.49 million) in fines.
Michael O'Higgins, the former chairman of British watchdog The
Pensions Regulator, and Phillip Evans, a former inquiry chair at
the Competition Markets Authority, are now vying to lead a class
action case on behalf of pension funds and asset managers they
claim lost out.
"This legal action will ensure that all affected entities -- large
and small, based in the UK and abroad -- are able to obtain the
compensation that they are owed," O'Higgins said in a statement
ahead of the hearing.
London's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) will decide whether to
allow the planned lawsuit to proceed as a so-called collective
action and, if so, which class representative is suitable to bring
it.
Only Evans' case names MUFG.
JPMorgan, Citi, Barclays, UBS, NatWest and MUFG all declined to
comment.
Foreign exchange is the crown jewel of London's financial sector.
With roughly 43% percent of the $8.3 trillion-per-day forex market
traded in the city, lawyers have been sharpening swords since the
European Commission found that banks shared commercially sensitive
customer order information, transaction prices, open currency risk
positions and other details between 2007 and 2013.
At the time the fines were levied in 2019, JPMorgan and RBS, now
NatWest, as well as UBS, said they had since made changes to their
controls. MUFG said it had also taken measures to prevent a
re-occurrence.
O'Higgins has instructed U.S. law firm Scott & Scott while Evans is
being advised by Hausfeld - the two litigators that co-led a
similar U.S. case against 15 banks and helped secure $2.3 billion
in settlements for American claimants.
But a CAT judge said in 2019 there could only be one representative
for a British lawsuit.
Investment banks across the globe have paid more than a combined
$11 billion in fines to settle U.S. and European regulatory
allegations that traders rigged forex markets. [GN]
KEEFE COMMISSARY: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Reichert Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Keefe Commissary Network, LLC filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Jeffrey Reichert v.
Keefe Commissary Network, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL,
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Tacoma.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit challenges the use of prepaid "release cards" for
reimbursing confiscated cash to inmates as they are released from
incarceration. Many government facilities have opted to use these
cards instead of redistributing funds via cash or a check. However,
unlike those other methods, release cards carry hefty fees that
start depleting inmates' funds within hours of release. The
contracts with government agencies to provide release cards are
managed by Defendant Rapid Investments, Inc., and issued by Cache
Valley Bank.
The Defendant now seeks a review of the Court's Order entered by
Judge Benjamin H. Settle, dated June 2, 2021, denying its motion to
compel arbitration.
The appellate case is captioned as Jeffrey Reichert, et al. v.
Keefe Commissary Network, LLC, et al., Case No. 21-35534, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July
1, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Keefe Commissary Network, LLC Mediation
Questionnaire was due July 8, 2021;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by July 30, 2021;
-- Transcript is due on August 30, 2021;
-- Appellant Keefe Commissary Network, LLC opening brief is due
on October 8, 2021;
-- Appellees Gary Moyer and Jeffrey Reichert answering brief is
due on November 8, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Defendant-Appellant KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK, LLC, DBA Access
Corrections, is represented by:
Sylvia Karen Bamberger, Esq.
BETTS, PATTERSON & MINES, P.S.
701 Pike Street, Suite 1400
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 268-8634
- and -
Russ Ponessa, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP
333 S 7th Street, Suite 2000
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-3434
Plaintiffs-Appellees JEFFREY REICHERT and GARY MOYER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
Chris R. Youtz, Esq.
SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: (206) 223-0303
- and -
Masimba Mutamba, Esq.
PALM BEACH COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
301 North Olive Avenue, Suite 601
West Palm Beach, FL 33460
Telephone: (561) 355-2249
E-mail: mmutamba@hrdc-law.org
KEEFE COMMISSARY: Rapid Investments Appeals Ruling in Reichert Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Rapid Investments, Inc., and Cache Valley Bank filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Jeffrey
Reichert v. Keefe Commissary Network, LLC, et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-05848-RBL, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Tacoma.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit challenges the use of prepaid "release cards" for
reimbursing confiscated cash to inmates as they are released from
incarceration. Many government facilities have opted to use these
cards instead of redistributing funds via cash or a check. However,
unlike those other methods, release cards carry hefty fees that
start depleting inmates' funds within hours of release. The
contracts with government agencies to provide release cards are
managed by Defendant Rapid Investments, Inc., and issued by Cache
Valley Bank.
The Defendants now seek a review of the order entered by Judge
Benjamin H. Settle, dated June 2, 2021, denying their motions to
compel arbitration.
The appellate case is captioned as Jeffrey Reichert, et al. v.
Rapid Investments, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-35530, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 1,
2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Cache Valley Bank and Rapid Investments, Inc.
Mediation Questionnaire was due July 8, 2021;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by July 30, 2021;
-- Transcript is due on August 30, 2021;
-- Appellants Cache Valley Bank and Rapid Investments, Inc.
opening brief is due on October 8, 2021;
-- Appellees Gary Moyer and Jeffrey Reichert answering brief is
due on November 8, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Defendants-Appellants RAPID INVESTMENTS, INC., DBA Access Freedom,
DBA Rapid Financial Solutions; and CACHE VALLEY BANK are
represented by:
Emily J. Harris, Esq.
CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER
FOGG & MOORE LLP
1001 4th Avenue, Suite 3900
Seattle, WA 98154-1051
Telephone: (206) 625-8600
E-mail: eharris@corrcronin.com
- and -
George F. Verschelden, Esq.
STINSON LLP
1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2900
Kansas City, MO 64106
Telephone: (816) 691-3382
E-mail: george.verschelden@stinson.com
Plaintiffs-Appellees JEFFREY REICHERT and GARY MOYER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
Chris R. Youtz, Esq.
SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: (206) 223-0303
- and -
Masimba Mutamba, Esq.
PALM BEACH COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
301 North Olive Avenue, Suite 601
West Palm Beach, FL 33460
Telephone: (561) 355-2249
E-mail: mmutamba@hrdc-law.org
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Shelton Sues Over Defective Breathing Machines
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GERRY SHELTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., PHILIPS NORTH
AMERICA LLC, and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-11076 (D. Mass., June 29, 2021) arises from the Defendants'
engagement in unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive methods, acts,
or practices with respect to the sale and advertisement of Recalled
Breathing Machines purchased by the Plaintiff and Class Members.
According to the complaint, on June 14, 2021, Philips announced a
recall of many of its Continuous Positive Airway Pressure and
Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure machines and ventilators.
Specifically, these Recalled Breathing Machines allegedly contain
polyester-based polyurethane (PE-PUR) foam for sound abatement.
Philips announced that this foam may break down and be inhaled or
ingested. Further, the PE-PUR foam may emit volatile organic
compounds that may be inhaled, ingested, adversely affect organs,
and are carcinogenic. Philips announced these hazards could result
in "serious injury which can be life-threatening or cause permanent
impairment."
The complaint asserts that Philips knew about these very
substantial and material risks long before the recall. Patients who
use the Recalled Breathing Machines have complained about black
particles in their machines for several years. Philips, however,
did not warn the public or its customers about these hazards until
late April 2021 and did not recall the Recalled Breathing Machines
until June 14, 2021, adds the suit.
The Defendants are health technology companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
E-mail: jason@blockleviton.com
- and -
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Dena Young, Esq.
John Kerrigan, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
E-mail: scarson@bm.net
dyoung@bm.net
jkerrigan@bm.net
- and -
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
John G. Albanese, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1229 Tyler Street NE Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 597-5997
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
jalbanese@bm.net
KURA SUSHI: Mediation in Gomes Class Action Set for September 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kura Sushi USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2021, that mediation in the putative
class action suit initiated by Brandy Gomes, is set for September
24, 2021.
On May 31, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed by a
former employee, Brandy Gomes, in Los Angeles County Superior
Court, alleging violations of California wage and hour laws.
On July 9, 2020, plaintiff's counsel filed a first amended class
action complaint to add Jamar Spencer, another former employee, as
a plaintiff to this action.
In addition, the first amended class action complaint added new
causes of action alleging violations of California wage and hour
laws including a cause of action brought under the California
Private Attorney General Act.
On August 7, 2020, the Company filed its answer to the first
amended complaint, generally denying the allegations in the
complaint. During the three months ended May 31, 2021, a joint
stipulation was filed requesting a delay in the class certification
hearing date to March 3, 2022 and a mediation was scheduled for
September 24, 2021.
Based on research conducted by the Company in preparation for the
mediation, the Company recorded an accrued liability of $1.0
million related to this complaint within general and administrative
expenses in the statements of operations during the three months
ended May 31, 2021, as the liability associated with a potential
settlement became probable and reasonably estimable. The Company is
unable to reasonably estimate the upper end of the range of
possible loss.
Kura Sushi said, "There can be no assurance of the actual liability
associated with this complaint, which may be higher than the
estimated amount accrued during the three months ended May 31,
2021. As the Company receives new information, it will reevaluate
its estimated liability and the estimated liability may change
significantly."
Kura Sushi USA, Inc. is a fast-growing, technology-enabled Japanese
restaurant concept that provides guests with a distinctive dining
experience by serving authentic Japanese cuisine through an
engaging revolving sushi service model, which the company refers to
as the "Kura Experience." The company is based in Irvine,
California.
KUSHCO HOLDINGS: May Putative Class Suit Disimissed
---------------------------------------------------
KushCo Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2021, that the putative class action
suit entitled, May v. KushCo Holdings, Inc., et al. filed April 30,
2019. Case No. 8:19-cv-00798-JLS-KES, U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, has been dismissed.
This putative stockholder class action against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a
class of purchasers of the Company's securities between July 13,
2017 and April 9, 2019, inclusive.
In September 2019, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and
co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs' amended
complaint was filed in November 2019.
In February 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. In September 2020, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss with leave to amend. On November 2, 2020, after the lead
plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint, the Court entered
judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing the action with
prejudice.
On December 2, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
of the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On February 18, 2021, after the lead plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed his appeal, the action was dismissed in its entirety with
prejudice.
KushCo Holdings, Inc. primarily engages in the wholesale
distribution of packaging supplies in the United States, Canada,
Europe, and internationally. The company offers pop-top bottles;
child resistant exit, paper exit, and foil barrier bags; tubes; and
polystyrene, silicone-lined polystyrene or glass containers. The
company was formerly known as Kush Bottles, Inc. and changed its
name to KushCo Holdings, Inc. in September 2018. KushCo Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Garden Grove,
California.
LINCARE INC: Appeals Judgment in Balderson Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Lincare Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled CHANDRA BALDERSON, et al., Plaintiffs v.
LINCARE INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00666, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at
Charleston.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff Chandra Balderson brought
this wrongful termination action under the West Virginia Human
Rights Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Lincare Inc.
unlawfully discriminated against her based on her gender when it
terminated her employment on June 3, 2019.
The Defendant is seeking a review of the order entered by Judge
Thomas E. Johnston on June 7, 2021, granting judgment against
Lincare in the amount of $150,000, plus one day back pay in the
amount of $141, plus attorneys' fees and expenses.
The appellate case is captioned as Chandra Balderson v. Lincare
Inc., Case No. 21-1753, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, filed on July 8, 2021.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant LINCARE INC. is represented by:
Eric Wayne Iskra, Esq.
Sarah E. Kowalkowski, Esq.
SPILMAN, THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC
Spilman Center
300 Kanawha Boulevard, East
P. O. Box 273
Charleston, WV 25321-0273
Telephone: (304) 340-3875
E-mail: eiskra@spilmanlaw.com
skowalkowski@spilmanlaw.com
Plaintiff-Appellee CHANDRA BALDERSON, on behalf of herself and a
class of others similarly situated, is represented by:
Katherine Brings Capito, Esq.
Ryan McCune Donovan, Esq.
Michael Brian Hissam, Esq.
Andrew C. Robey, Esq.
HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE PLLC
P. O. Box 3983
Charleston, WV 25339
Telephone: (681) 265-3802
E-mail: kcapito@fbtlaw.com
mhissam@hfdrlaw.com
arobey@hfdrlaw.com
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Bid to Nix Purported Securities Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Loop Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 15, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the consolidated purported class action suit entitled, In
re Loop Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No.
7:20-cv-08538, is pending.
On October 13, 2020, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a proposed class-action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned Olivier Tremblay, Individually and on Behalf of All Other
Similarly Situated v. Loop Industries, Inc., Daniel Solomita, and
Nelson Gentiletti, Case No. 7:20-cv-0838 (Tremblay Class Action).
The allegations in the complaint claim that the defendants
allegedly violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making materially
false and/or misleading statements, as well as allegedly failing to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, which caused the Company's securities to
trade at artificially inflated prices.
Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a class of
purchasers of Loop's securities between September 24, 2018 and
October 12, 2020.
On October 28, 2020, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a second proposed class-action lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, captioned Michelle Bazzini, Individually and on Behalf of
All Other Similarly Situated v. Loop Industries, Inc., Daniel
Solomita, and Nelson Gentiletti, Case No. 7:20-cv-09031-UA.
The allegations in this complaint are similar in nature to those
made in the Tremblay Class Action.
On January 4, 2021, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York rendered a stipulation and order
granting the consolidation of the two class-action lawsuits filed
in New York as In re Loop Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 7:20-cv-08538.
Sakari Johansson and John Jay Cappa have been appointed as Co-Lead
Plaintiffs and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and Pomerantz LLP have
been appointed as Co-Lead Counsel for the class.
Plaintiffs served a consolidated amended complaint on February 18,
2021 which alleges defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and
Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as allegedly
failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, which caused the Company's
securities to trade at artificially inflated prices.
The consolidated amended complaint relies on the October 13, 2020
report published by a third party regarding the Company to support
their allegations.
Defendants served a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on April 27, 2021. Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion
to Dismiss was served on May 27, 2021 and Defendants' reply in
support of the motion to dismiss was served on June 11, 2021.
Loop Industries, Inc. focuses on depolymerizing waste polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) plastics and polyester fibers into base
building blocks. It re-polymerized monomers into virgin-quality PET
plastic for use in food-grade plastic packaging, such as water and
soda bottles, as well as polyester fibers for textile applications.
The Company was founded in 2014 and is based in Terrebonne,
Canada.
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Securities Class Suit in Quebec Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Loop Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 15, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a proposed securities class action suit in the Superior
Court of Quebec (District of Terrebonne, Province of Quebec,
Canada).
On October 13, 2020, the Company, Loop Canada Inc. and certain of
their officers and directors were named as defendants in a proposed
securities class action filed in the Superior Court of Quebec
(District of Terrebonne, Province of Quebec, Canada), in file no.
700-06-000012-205. The Application for authorization of a class
action and for authorization to bring an action pursuant to section
225.4 of the Quebec Securities Act (the Application) was filed by
an individual shareholder on behalf of himself and a class of
buyers who purchased our securities during the Class Period (not
defined).
Plaintiff alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants
allegedly made false and/or misleading statements and allegedly
failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning the Company's
technology, business model, operations and prospects, thus causing
the Company's stock price to be artificially inflated and thereby
causing plaintiff to suffer damages. Plaintiff seeks unspecified
damages stemming from losses he claims to have suffered as a result
of the foregoing.
On December 13, 2020, the Application was amended in order to add
allegations regarding specific misrepresentations.
Loop Industries, Inc. focuses on depolymerizing waste polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) plastics and polyester fibers into base
building blocks. It re-polymerized monomers into virgin-quality PET
plastic for use in food-grade plastic packaging, such as water and
soda bottles, as well as polyester fibers for textile applications.
The Company was founded in 2014 and is based in Terrebonne, Canada.
M.A.C. GRADING: Court Approves Settlement Deal in Santos Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PANFILO GONZALES SANTOS,
a/k/a "Panfilo Gonzalez Santos,"BENJAMIN GONZALEZ SANJUAN, and
GILBERTO GONZALEZ SANJUAN, v. M.A.C. GRADING CO.,
CHRISTOPHER HALES, and and MELISSA D. HALES, Case No. 7:19-CV-219-D
(E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge James C. Dever entered an order granting
the parties' Joint Motion and approving the Settlement Agreement
between the parties.
The court shall retain jurisdiction over this action for a period
of 60 days after the date that this order is filed to allow for the
parties to enforce the Settlement Agreement. At the expiration of
that 60-day period, absent a motion by one of the parties to this
action, this action shall be dismissed with prejudice. The motion
to certify class is denied as moot. To the extent that the parties
have not resolved the topic of attorneys' fees and costs, the court
directs the parties to engage in a court-hosted settlement
conference with United States Magistrate Judge Gates.
Mac Grading was founded in 1998. The company's line of business
includes distributing lumber, plywood, and millwork.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ijw7J0 at no extra charge.[CC]
MICHIGAN: Swanson Files Appeals Ruling in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff JACK W. SWANSON filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled JACK W. SWANSON v. STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Case No. 21-000083-MZ, in the Michigan Court of Claims.
The appellate case is captioned as JACK W. SWANSON v. STATE OF
MICHIGAN, Case No. 357711, in the Michigan Court of Appeals.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JACK SWANSON, W/ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
is represented by:
Philip Lee Ellison, Esq.
Matthew E. Gronda, Esq.
Defendant-Appellee STATE OF MICHIGAN is represented by:
Eric Michael Jamison, Esq.
MRS BPO LLC: Liebman FDCPA Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as David M. Liebman, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated v. MRS BPO, LLC, SECOND ROUND SUB LLC, JOHN DOES
1 TO 10, Case No. ESX-L-78-00021 was transferred from the New
Jersey Superior Court, Law Div - Essex County to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey on July 14, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-13630 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
MRS BPO, LLC -- https://portal.mrsbpo.com/ -- is a full-service
accounts receivable management firm based in Cherry Hill, New
Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Aleksander P. Powietrzynski, Esq.
WINSTON & WINSTON, P.C.
75 South Broadway, Ste. 443
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (212) 532-2700
Fax: (212) 922-9484
Email: alex@winstonandwinston.com
NCAA: Beard Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------
The case styled as Coyle Beard, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01906, 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 July 14,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03744 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
NCAA: Bowman Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kone Bowman, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01860, 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 July 14,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03741 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
NCAA: Diskint Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Diskint, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01837, 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 July 14,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03738 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
NCAA: Dunlap Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Matthew Dunlap, Rayne Mack, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01789, 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 July
14, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03733 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
NCAA: Harris Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Shane Harris, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01817, 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 July 14,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03735 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
NCAA: Holland Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dionte Holland, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01868, 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 July 14,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03742 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
NETFLIX INC: Faces Streaming Tax Class Action From Ohio Cities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Ebert, writing for BloombergTax, reports that Netflix Inc. and
Hulu LLC fought in federal court on July 12 to prevent the
formation of a massive class of Ohio municipalities seeking to
extract up to 5% of revenue that streaming services receive from
cord-cutting residents.
The hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio is a proving ground for whether companies that offer streaming
services can be taxed in the same way as cable companies that use
the wires in cities' and towns' right-of-way. [GN]
NEW JERSEY VENTURES: Denial of Arbitration in Sikorski Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL SIKORSKI, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Respondent v. NEW JERSEY
VENTURES PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a GATEWAY CLASSIC CARS OF NJ, SAL
AKBANI, Defendants-Appellants, and TRAILER SOLUTIONS-FL, LLC,
COLLECTOR CARS LENDING, AND ANDREW ACKERMAN,
Defendants-Respondents, Case No. A-0963-20 (N.J. Super. App. Div.),
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the
order denying Defendants Gateway and Sal Akbani's motion to compel
arbitration and to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
In the putative consumer class action, the Gateway Defendants
appeal an order denying their motion to compel arbitration and to
dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
The Plaintiff bought a used 1971 Chevrolet Camaro from Gateway.
The Plaintiff and Gateway executed a "Motor Vehicle Purchase
Contract," which contained a "complete agreement" clause, stating
the contract "constituted the entire agreement between the
parties." It did not contain an arbitration clause and said nothing
about arbitration or any limit on the Plaintiff's ability to bring
a lawsuit against Gateway.
To obtain additional funds to purchase the car, the Plaintiff
obtained a loan from Medallion Bank. Two days after he signed the
purchase contract with Gateway, the Plaintiff signed a Medallion
Bank "SIMPLE INTEREST NOTE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT." the agreement
identified the Plaintiff as "borrower" or "you"; the "1971
Chevrolet Camaro" as the property; Medallion Bank as the "lender,"
"we," or "us"; and, erroneously, Collector Car Lending as the
seller. The agreement expressly stated that "Medallion Bank, and
not the seller of the property is the lender in this transaction."
Gateway was not identified as a party to the agreement, was not
given any rights under the agreement, and did not execute the
agreement.
After the Plaintiff paid for the car, the car was delivered to him
and he had it inspected. The inspection revealed several problems,
leading him to believe someone had "tampered" with the car and that
it was not the car Gateway had advertised. The Plaintiff asked
Gateway for a refund or a substitute car; Gateway refused. He
subsequently learned the car could catch on fire and was dangerous
to drive.
The Plaintiff filed a putative class-action complaint with a jury
demand, alleging, among other things, Gateway violated certain
Automotive Sales Practices (ASP) regulations, N.J.A.C. 13:45A-26B.1
to-26B.4; the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to-226
(CFA); and the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act,
N.J.S.A. 56:12-14 to-18 (TCCWNA). He also demanded pursuant to the
Declaratory Judgment Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:16-50 to-62, a declaratory
judgment that the purchase contract violated the ASP regulations,
the CFA, and TCCWNA and claimed Gateway had breached its warranties
to the Plaintiff.
In lieu of an answer, the Gateway Defendants moved to compel
arbitration and dismiss the complaint with prejudice. They did not
base their motion on anything in the Gateway purchase contract but
relied solely on their contention that Gateway was a third-party
beneficiary of the note agreement between the Plaintiff and
Medallion Bank and could enforce the arbitration clause contained
in that agreement.
In a well-reasoned written opinion, Judge James R. Swift denied the
motion, holding the language used in the arbitration clause of the
Medallion note agreement was "unambiguous" that the note agreement
and its arbitration clause applied only to the Plaintiff and
Medallion Bank. He also found Gateway and the Plaintiff had
"entered into their own, separate contract when the Plaintiff
agreed to purchase the car" and Gateway "could have added its own
arbitration clause into the purchase contract with the Plaintiff,"
but "chose not to do so and is instead trying to enforce a right in
a contract in which it was not a party to, and the Plaintiff has
not assented to."
Finding the language of the Medallion note agreement "unequivocally
contradicted" Gateway's third-party-beneficiary claim, Judge Swift
held "there is nothing to indicate that the parties intended to
have Gateway as an intended third-party beneficiary" and found if
plaintiff and Medallion wanted Gateway to be "a third-party
beneficiary and able to enforce rights under the Note, they would
have included language that indicates such."
Judge Swift concluded the Gateway defendants "cannot enforce the
arbitration provision because there is no mutual assent between
Gateway and the Plaintiff," the Medallion note agreement
"unambiguously states that the arbitration provision is between the
Plaintiff and Medallion Bank," and Gateway was "not a third-party
beneficiary" based on a lack of intent and the plain language of
the Medallion note agreement stating the note agreement was "solely
between the Plaintiff and Medallion Bank." Finding Gateway was
trying to enforce a right it did not have, Judge Swift denied the
motion.
Unable to point to any language establishing the Plaintiff assented
to arbitrating his claims against Gateway, the Gateway Defendants
argue the Plaintiff must arbitrate his claims against them because
he and Medallion did not expressly exclude Gateway from the
arbitration provision in the Medallion note agreement.
That argument turns the Appellate Division's arbitration
jurisprudence on its head -- instead of proving actual assent to
arbitrate, the party seeking to compel arbitration can simply rely
on the absence of language refusing to arbitrate -- and ignores the
note agreement's language specifically limiting its application to
the Plaintiff and Medallion.
The Appellate Division opines that if it were to accept Gateway's
argument, the Plaintiff would be deprived of his rights of access
to the courts and to a jury trial on his claims against the Gateway
defendants when no contractual language -- neither Gateway's
purchase contract nor the Medallion note agreement -- "clearly
stated that purpose." Basing a right to arbitrate on an absence of
language instead of the presence of language establishing mutual
assent would defeat the long-standing principle that "it is
requisite to waiver of a legal right that there be 'a clear,
unequivocal, and decisive act of the party.'" Applying that
principle to arbitration, "the point is to assure that the parties
know that in electing arbitration as the exclusive remedy, they are
waiving their time-honored right to sue."
Effectively, the Gateway Defendants want the Appellate Division to
expand the scope of the arbitration clause in the Medallion note
agreement to include Gateway. That it cannot do.
Finding unpersuasive the Defendants' argument that they can compel
arbitration because Gateway is a purported third-party beneficiary
of a contract between the Plaintiff and a bank that loaned
plaintiff money, the Appellate Division affirms.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 2, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/265xrcrf from Leagle.com.
Anthony E. Bush -- abush@eckertseamans.com -- argued the cause for
Appellants (Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, attorneys;
Anthony E. Bush of counsel and on the briefs, Kevin F. Farrington
-- kfarrington@eckertseamans.com -- on the briefs).
Andrew R. Wolf -- awolf@wolflawfirm.net -- argued the cause for
Respondent (The Wolf Law Firm, LLC and Jonathan Rudnick --
jonr@jonrudlaw.com -- attorneys; Bharati O. Sharma --
bsharma@weitzlux.com -- and Jonathan Rudnick on the brief).
NEW YORK CITY: Court Closes EMS Union Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOCAL 3621, EMS OFFICERS
UNION, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, et al., v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et
al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04476-LJL-KNF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Lewis J. liman entered an order directing the Clerk of Court to
close Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
Two weeks after the Court's ruling on the report and
recommendation, Plaintiffs shall file their reply to the motion for
class certification, in which event the Court will treat the papers
that have been filed as of that date as the complete briefing.
On March 15, 2021, the parties requested that the Court hold in
abeyance Plaintiffs' time to reply in the pending motion for class
certification so that the Court may first rule on Plaintiffs'
motion to preclude pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. The parties
submitted a proposed briefing schedule whereby Plaintiffs would
file their reply in the pending motion for certification two (2)
weeks after the Courts issued its ruling on Plaintiffs' Rule 37
motion.
The Court granted that request on March 18, 2021. On May 18, 2021,
Magistrate Judge Cave issued a report and recommendation on
Plaintiffs' Rule 37 motion. Objections to the report and
recommendation were filed on June 17, 2021, and opposition to these
objections are due on July 14, 2021.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3re0C7g at no extra charge.[CC]
NEW YORK PIZZERIA: Seeks 5th Cir. Review in Ettorre FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant New York Pizzeria, Incorporated filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Chiara Ettorre,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) v. New York Pizzeria, Inc., Case No.
4:19-CV-245, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas, Houston.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees,
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
New York Pizzeria, Inc., is a Texas corporation. The Company
operates a chain of restaurants known as Russo's, which, according
to its Web site, has locations "from Hawaii to Dubai, with over 30
outposts in between." The Defendant owns at least six locations
within the greater Houston, Texas area.
The appellate case is captioned as Ettorre v. New York Pizzeria,
Case No. 21-20344, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit, filed on July 2, 2021.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant New York Pizzeria, Incorporated is represented
by:
Gregg M. Rosenberg, Esq.
ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES
3518 Travis Street
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 960-8300
E-mail: gregg@rosenberglaw.com
Plaintiff-Appellee Chiara Ettorre, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), is
represented by:
Drew Herrmann, Esq.
801 Cherry Street
Burnett Plaza
Fort Worth, TX 76102-0000
Telephone: (817) 479-9229
E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
- and -
Douglas Burton Welmaker, Esq.
MORELAND VERRETT, P.C.
700 W. Summit Drive
Wimberley, TX 78676
Telephone: (512) 782-0567
E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com
NEWMAN TECH: Miner Seeks to Certify Manufacturing Employees Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANY MINER, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. NEWMAN TECHNOLOGY,
INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00694-JPC (N.D. Ohio), the Representative
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying
the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) class and implement a
procedure, set forth in the accompanying proposed order, whereby
potential opt-in plaintiffs are notified of Plaintiff's FLSA claims
and given an opportunity to join this collective action as party
plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
In Representative Plaintiff's Complaint, she defined the class as
follows:
"All former and current manufacturing employees of Newman
Technology, Inc.'s Ohio facility between March 29, 2018 and
the present."
On March 29, 2021, Plaintiff Brittany Miner initiated this
collective action against Newman as a result of Defendant's
practices and policies of not paying its non-exempt employees,
including Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing
employees, the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of
pay for all of the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, in
violation of the FLSA.
Specifically, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
were not paid for work performed before and after their scheduled
start and stop times, and/or for work performed during a designated
lunch period.
Newman manufactures automotive components. The Company offers
products such as automotive door frames, exhausts, and exterior
trims.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 9,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xFKdLo
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Steiner, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Building, Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
david@lazzarolawfirm.com
NEXTGEAR CAPITAL: $6.7MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A legal notice of settlement in the class action lawsuit against
NextGear Capital Inc. has been issued as follows:
If you are a used car dealer who had floorplan agreement(s) with
Dealer Services Corporation, now known as NextGear Capital, Inc.,
at any time between January 2005 and July 2013, and floor planned
one or more vehicles with DSC/NextGear under such agreement, but
did not sign an agreement containing an arbitration or class action
waiver provision, you may be eligible for a payment in a class
action settlement.
What is this lawsuit about?
The Plaintiff Class Representatives, on their own behalf and on
behalf of the Class Members, allege that NextGear breached its
contracts with Class Members by charging interest on money before
it was actually loaned with respect to certain advances, resulting
in additional interest charges that the Class Members never agreed
to pay. The Class Representatives filed this lawsuit to ask the
Court to find that NextGear's alleged conduct caused money damages.
NextGear denies these allegations, denies that it breached the
contracts with the Class Members, and denies all liability. On
February 26, 2020, the Court certified a Class and California
Subclass of dealers who could pursue a breach of contract claim
against NextGear as a class action. The Class and California
Subclass were defined as follows: Class: All used car dealers in
the United States of America that were parties to a floorplan
agreement with DSC, n/k/a NextGear, effective during the time
period of January 2005 through July 2013, and that floor planned
one or more vehicles with DSC/NextGear under such agreement,
excluding any dealer that signed an agreement containing an
arbitration or class action waiver provision. California Subclass:
All California used car dealers that were parties to a floorplan
agreement with DSC, n/k/a NextGear, effective during the time
period of January 2005 through July 2013, which floorplan agreement
requires the application of California law, and that floor planned
one or more vehicles with DSC/NextGear under such agreement,
excluding any dealer that signed an agreement containing an
arbitration or class action waiver provision. Members of the Class,
including members of the California Subclass, are referred to
herein as "Class Members." Notice was provided to Class Members in
2020 as required by the Court, and Class Members were given the
opportunity to opt out of the Class and the California Subclass at
that time. If you come within the definition of the Class and/or
the California Subclass and did not timely opt out in writing, you
are a Class Member and you may no longer opt out of the class.
What are the terms of the proposed settlement?
The settlement terms are described in the following paragraphs, and
a complete version of the Settlement Agreement and the Court's
order granting preliminary approval are available for your review
at www.donlinrecano.com/rbm . The Class Representatives and
NextGear have agreed to the settlement described below prior to
trial or any finding of liability. The Class Representatives and
Class Counsel believe that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and
in the best interests of the Class Members. Class Counsel have
considered a number of factors, including: (i) an assessment of the
likelihood that the Class Members would prevail at trial; (ii) the
range of possible recovery available to Class Members as a result
of such a trial; (iii) the consideration provided to Class Members
pursuant to the Settlement, as compared to the range of possible
recovery discounted for the inherent risks of litigation; (iv) the
complexity, expense, and possible duration of the Litigation in the
absence of a settlement; and (v) the stage of proceedings at which
the Settlement was reached. The Court has determined,
preliminarily, that this settlement is within the range of being
fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Class Members,
subject to the hearing on final approval of the settlement.
Am I a member of the Class?
In order to participate in the Settlement, you must be a member of
the Class or California Subclass previously certified by the Court
in this Litigation, which means you must fall under the description
of the Class provided in the section titled "What is this lawsuit
about?" above. If you do not fall under that description, or if you
previously opted out of the Class and/or the California Subclass in
writing, you are not eligible to participate in this settlement and
this settlement does not impact your rights.
What has NextGear agreed to pay in Settlement Consideration?
In consideration for the release of all claims described below,
NextGear will pay a total of six million, seven hundred fifty
thousand dollars ($6,750,000), comprised of a cash payment of four
million, two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($4,250,000) and a
setoff credit against amounts Class Members owe to NextGear of two
million, five hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000) (together, the
"Common Fund"). The Common Fund will be used (a) to pay all of the
costs and expenses incurred in connection with providing notice to
Class Members and administering, calculating, and distributing
compensation to Class Members; (b) to pay the attorneys' fees and
expenses awarded to Class Counsel by the Court; and (c) to
distribute cash compensation and setoff credits to Class Members in
the manner provided by the Settlement Agreement.
Will NextGear be released from all liability?
Upon final approval of the settlement, the claims filed against
NextGear in the Litigation will be dismissed, and the Class
Representatives and the Class Members, on behalf of themselves and
their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, assigns,
present and former officers, directors, shareholders, partners,
members, employees, principals, guarantors, attorneys, agents,
representatives, and each of their respective heirs, executors,
representatives, predecessors, successors, personal
representatives, attorneys, agents, and assigns, as applicable (the
"Releasing Parties"), shall be deemed to have, and hereby do, fully
and irrevocably release and forever discharge NextGear, Dealer
Services Corporation, Cox Enterprises, Inc., Cox Automotive, Inc.,
and John Wick, and their corporate parents, subsidiaries,
affiliates, and each of their shareholders, officers, directors,
agents, representatives, employees, attorneys, insurers, heirs,
predecessors, successors, and assigns (the "Released Parties") of
and from any and all liability, claims, or causes of action
whatsoever which the Releasing Parties have or may have against any
or all of the Released Parties, whether known or unknown, suspected
or unsuspected, liquidated or unliquidated, and whether or not
concealed or hidden, both at law and in equity, whether presently
in existence or arising in the future, arising out of or related to
interest charged under any floor plan agreements with NextGear
and/or any charges or fees assessed by NextGear under any floor
plan agreement, including but not limited to any claims of breach
of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud or constructive fraud, unfair
or deceptive business practices, violation of RICO, RICO
conspiracy, tortious interference, punitive damages, or any other
claim which was or could have been asserted in the Litigation.
Will the lawsuit against NextGear be Dismissed With Prejudice?
Once the settlement is fully administered, the Litigation will be
closed and dismissed with prejudice. For clarity, NextGear
reserves, and does not waive or release, any rights, claims,
defenses, and/or counterclaims against any Class Member who has an
outstanding obligation to NextGear after allocation of the setoff
credits to Class Members. Those rights, claims, defenses, and/or
counterclaims shall survive the Litigation. The relief provided in
the Settlement Agreement and any judgment entered in the
Litigation, whether favorable or unfavorable to the Class and/or
California Subclass, will include and be binding on all Class
Members, even if they have objected to this Settlement Agreement
and even if they have other pending lawsuits or claims against any
of the Released Parties.
Why was a Class Action Suit filed against NextGear?
Three Plaintiffs - Red Barn Motors, Inc., Platinum Motors, Inc.,
and Mattingly Auto Sales, Inc. filed this lawsuit against NextGear,
claiming that NextGear charged interest on money before it actually
loaned the money.
Has the Court decided who is right?
No, the Court has not decided whether Plaintiffs or NextGear is
correct or whether the used car dealers have suffered any damages.
The Court has made a number of legal rulings in the case, however,
and you may see those rulings, along with the key pleadings filed
by the parties at the following website maintained by the Class
Notice Administrator at www.donlinrecano.com/rbm.
The parties have now reached a settlement which the Court has
preliminarily approved, and which will provide for payment or other
consideration from NextGear to class members. Payments and other
consideration made by NextGear to class members are not an
admission of liability.
Why did I get this notification if I do not remember doing business
with NextGear?
NextGear's business records show that you borrowed money from
NextGear. It may have been many years ago. NextGear used to be
known as Dealer Services Corporation, and you may have had your
agreement with Dealer Services Corporation. Even if you do not
remember the agreement, you may still have a claim and you may be
entitled to damages.
Do I need to go to Court?
No, there is no need for you to appear in Court. You may appear at
the hearing on Final Approval of the Settlement, on September 28,
2021, at 2:00 p.m., in the Birch Bayh Federal Building & United
States Courthouse, Courtroom 344, 46 East Ohio Street,
Indianapolis, IN 46204. However, you will not be allowed to speak
at the hearing unless you have filed a written objection to the
Settlement.
Do I have a lawyer in this class action?
The Court has appointed several lawyers to represent Class Members.
These lawyers are referred to as Class Counsel and they have
experience in prosecuting complex cases on behalf of plaintiffs.
The Court has determined that the Class Counsel are qualified and
that they have ably represented the interests of Class Members to
date.
The Class Counsel are:
KERRY A. MURPHY
KERRY MURPHY LAW LLC
715 Girod Street, Suite 250
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Telephone: (504) 603-1500
GLADSTONE N. JONES, III
LYNN E. SWANSON
JONES, SWANSON, HUDDELL &
GARRISON, L.L.C.
601 Poydras Street, Suite 2655
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Telephone: (504) 523-2500
CASSIE E. FELDER
THE CASSIE FELDER LAW FIRM
7515 Jefferson Hwy., #313
Baton Rouge, LA 70806
Telephone: (504) 232-1733
JAMES M. GARNER
JACOB A. AIREY
SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT, L.L.C.
909 Poydras Street, Suite 2800
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112
Telephone: (504) 299-2100
KATHLEEN ANN DELANEY
DELANEY & DELANEY LLC
3646 North Washington Blvd.
Indianapolis, IN 46205
Telephone: (317) 920-0400
How will the lawyers be paid?
Since the beginning of this lawsuit in 2013, Class Counsel have not
received any payment for their services in prosecuting the case,
nor have they been reimbursed for any out-of-pocket expenses. Class
Counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of
$2,250,000 (which is one-third of the Common Fund) and an award of
actual litigation expenses of up to $300,000, both of which are
subject to Court approval. Additionally, the Class Representatives
will ask the Court to allow payment of reasonable and necessary
administrative expenses, including expenses associated with mailing
notice to the Class Members and administering the Settlement, in an
amount up to $400,000. Any award of attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses approved by the Court will be payable from the Common
Fund. The Class Representatives will file a petition for an award
of attorneys' fees and a motion for final approval of the
Settlement with the Court at least 30 days before the date of the
Final Approval Hearing identified above.
Will the Plaintiff Class Representatives be paid for their
service?
In connection with the Court's consideration of the proposed
Settlement, the Class Representatives will apply to the Court for
compensation in an amount up to $7,500.00 for each of the three
Class Representatives due to their role in the Litigation. If
awarded, this compensation would be paid separately from the Common
Fund.
How much money will I receive from the Settlement?
Under the Allocation Plan, a Class Member who does not have any
outstanding obligation to NextGear, or whose Damages Claim exceeds
the amount the Class Member owes to NextGear, will receive a cash
payment from the Common Fund, subject to certain minimum
thresholds, as described below. A Class Member who has any
outstanding obligation to NextGear will receive a setoff credit
allocation. Your Damages Claim will be calculated using a formula
for each vehicle you floor planned with Dealer Services Corporation
and paid off, based on the number of days between floor planning
the vehicle and Dealer Services Corporation's funding of the
vehicle and total interest charged. The calculation will be
performed by Class Counsel and an expert accounting consultant they
have engaged, using transactional data produced by NextGear in the
Litigation. The determination of the amount of cash payments and
credit allocations is final and binding upon approval of the Court.
Class Members who owe money to NextGear will receive a pro rata
share of the $2,500,000 setoff credit portion of the Common Fund.
If you are entitled to receive a credit allocation, NextGear will
make the appropriate account credit in its system, without any
further action required by you. Class Members who do not owe money
to NextGear, or whose Damages Claim exceeds the amount the Class
Member owes to NextGear, will receive a pro rata share of the
$4,250,000 cash portion of the Common Fund. The process for making
cash payments will be as follows: (a) The following items will be
deducted from the cash portion of the Common Fund before payments
are made: (1) administrative expenses, including expenses
associated with mailing notice to the Class Members and
administering the Settlement, and (2) any attorneys' fees and
expenses awarded to Class Counsel. The remainder after these
deductions will be distributed to Class Members entitled to a cash
payment. (b) A Settlement Administrator has been retained to
distribute the cash payments to Class Members. The payments will be
distributed to Class Members according to the Allocation Plan. (c)
The Settlement Administrator will mail a check to each Class Member
as described in the Allocation Plan. (d) Class Counsel estimate
that, in the first settlement distribution, each Class Member will
receive between $6 and $6,385. Any Class Member who would be
entitled to a cash payment of less than $6 will not receive a
distribution payment given that the costs to administer such
payments are higher than the benefit. (e) Under the Allocation
Plan, you might receive a second settlement distribution if you
cash the first distribution check and funds remain after the first
distribution.
What do I need to do to receive my settlement payment?
If your expected cash payment is $600 or higher, you will need to
complete and return a taxpayer identification form (IRS W-9) that
will be sent to you by the Settlement Administrator. If you are
eligible for a setoff credit allocation, NextGear will make the
appropriate account credit in its system after the Court grants
final approval of the Settlement. If you are eligible for a cash
payment, the check will be mailed to you after the Court grants
final approval of the Settlement.
What will happen at the Final Approval Hearing?
A Final Approval Hearing will be held on September 28, 2021, at
2:00 p.m. in the Birch Bayh Federal Building & United States
Courthouse, Courtroom 344, 46 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis, IN,
46204. At the Hearing, the Court will consider several different
issues, including: (a) whether the Settlement, on the terms and
conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement, should be
finally approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(b) whether the Released Claims of the Class Members should be
dismissed on the merits and with prejudice; (c) whether the
Allocation Plan is fair, reasonable, and should be approved; (d)
whether the application for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses
submitted by Class Counsel in connection with the Final Approval
Hearing should be approved; (e) whether the application for Class
Representatives' Service Awards to be submitted in connection with
the Final Approval Hearing should be approved; and (f) such other
matters as the Court may deem necessary or appropriate.
Can I ask to be excluded from the lawsuit?
No. The deadline to ask to be excluded from the lawsuit has
passed.
Can I object to the settlement?
Yes. Any Class Member may object to the Settlement, Class Counsel's
application for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and/or to the
Service Awards to the Class Representatives. Any Class Member
wishing to object must (a) file a written statement of objection
electronically with the Court on or before September 10, 2021 or
(b) mail a written statement of objection by first-class postage
prepaid, postmarked on or before September 1, 2021, to the (i)
Clerk of Court, United States District Court, Southern District of
Indiana, 46 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204, and (ii) the
following parties and counsel of record: Donlin, Recano & Company,
Inc. Re: Red Barn Motors, Inc. P.O. Box 199043 Blythebourne Station
Brooklyn, NY 11219 Paul D. Vink BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS LLP 111
Monument Circle, Suite 2700 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Objections must
be filed no later than September 10, 2021 or postmarked no later
than September 1, 2021. Objections filed or postmarked after these
dates may not be considered. The written statement of objection
must set forth the name of the objector; the identity of all
counsel who represent the objector, including any former or current
counsel who may be entitled to compensation for any reason related
to the objection, or who will appear at the Final Approval Hearing,
if any; all grounds for the objection, accompanied by any legal
support for the objection; a description of all evidence to be
presented at the Final Approval Hearing in support of the
objection; a statement confirming whether the objector intends to
personally appear and/or seek leave to testify at the Final
Approval Hearing; and the objector's signature. Any Class Member
who has submitted a written statement of objection as described
above may also appear at the Final Approval Hearing in person or by
counsel and be heard, to the extent allowed by the Court, either in
support of or in opposition to the matters to be considered at the
Hearing. However, as long as you submitted your written objection
on time, you do not need to attend the Hearing for your objection
to be considered. While Class Members and objectors may retain
their own individual counsel, you will be responsible for the fees
and costs of any counsel you retain to represent you individually.
Class Counsel and/or NextGear may file responses to any objections,
papers, or briefs filed by any Class Member before the Final
Approval Hearing. Any such response shall be served by email on the
person who made the objection or his, her, or its attorney.
What would I have to do to sue NextGear individually?
If you previously chose to be excluded from the lawsuit during the
opt out period and wish to pursue a lawsuit individually, you will
have to hire your own lawyer, file your own lawsuit, respond to
discovery, testify, and appear in court to prove your claims at
trial.
Is there any money available now?
No money is available now. The parties have reached a settlement
which will provide for payment of money or other consideration to
the class members, including a cash payment of $4,250,000 and a
setoff credit of $2,500,000 against amounts owed NextGear. No money
will be available unless and until the Court grants final approval
of the settlement. The hearing on final approval is set for
September 28, 2021.
Will I get money after the Court rules?
If you remained a Class Member, and the Settlement is approved, you
will be notified about how to receive any share recovered on your
behalf, and the amount of the recovery.
Is more information about the lawsuit available?
If you have any questions or require additional information, you
should contact the Class Notice Administrator, Donlin Recano, which
can answer questions about your status as a Class Member, the
estimated amount you can expect to receive from the Settlement, the
procedures for opting out, deadlines, and the status of the case,
by one of the following means:
By phone at 1-866-745-0266
By email at rbminfo@donlinrecano.com
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK REGARDING THIS
MATTER
OREGON: Vollert Suit Stayed Pending Class Cert Resolution in Maney
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JIMMY NATHANIEL VOLLERT v.
KATE BROWN et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00585-SB (D. Or.), the Hon.
Judge Stacie F. Beckerman entered an order granting the Defendants'
motion to stay and staying this action pending resolution of class
certification in the Maney case.
Jimmy Vollert, a self-represented litigant in the custody of the
Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC), filed this civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against Governor Kate Brown,
Colette Peters, ODOC, and Snake River Correctional Institution
("SRCI") medical staff, alleging violations of his Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights. This matter comes before the Court on
the Defendants' motion to stay this litigation.
Vollert is currently housed at Columbia River Correctional
Institution. On April 19, 2021, Vollert filed this action against
the Defendants, alleging that Defendants knowingly exposed him to
COVID-19 and that Defendants' failure adequately to respond to
COVID-19 violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
A year ago, on April 6, 2020, seven AICs (the "Maney Plaintiffs")
housed at four ODOC institutions filed a civil rights action under
Section 1983 against Governor Brown and several ODOC officials (the
"Maney Defendants"). Maney et al. v. Brown et al.,
6:20-cv-00570-SB. The Maney Plaintiffs allege that the Maney
Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to their health and
safety by failing adequately to protect them from COVID-19 through
social distancing, testing, sanitizing, medical treatment, masking,
and vaccines. The Maney Plaintiffs assert allegations on behalf of
a class of similarly situated AICs, and propose three classes: (1)
the "Damages Class"; (2); the "Vaccine Class"; and (3) the
"Wrongful Death Class."
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 9, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zi4Spt at no
extra charge.[CC]
OVINTIV INC: Swafford Files Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ovintiv Inc. The case
is styled as Mary Lansden Swafford, as trustee for the Mary Lansden
Swafford GST Exemption Residuary Trust on behalf of Mary Lansden
Swafford v. Ovintiv Inc., Ovintiv Mid-Continent Inc, Case No.
6:21-cv-00210-SPS (E.D. Okla., July 14, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Ovintiv Inc. -- https://www.ovintiv.com/ -- is a leading North
American exploration and production (E&P) company focused on
developing its high-quality, multi-basin portfolio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
Ryan K. Wilson
BRADFORD & WILSON, PLLC
431 W Main St, Ste D
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Phone: (405) 698-2770
Fax: (405) 234-5506
Email: reagan@bradwil.com
ryan@bradwil.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michelle Scheffler, Esq.
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP (Houston)
1221 McKinney St, Ste 4000
Houston, TX 77010
Phone: (713) 547-2577
Email: Michelle.Scheffler@haynesboone.com
PRATT INSTITUTE: New York Court Narrows Claims in Hewitt Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUNA HEWITT and KRISTEN THOMAS on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRATT INSTITUTE,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-2007 (ERK) (SJB) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Edward
R. Korman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York granted in part and denied in part Pratt's motion to
dismiss.
The Plaintiffs are two students at the Pratt Institute, a private
university which focuses on architecture, design, and other
artistic programs. The Plaintiffs were students at Pratt during
the spring 2020 semester, which began on Jan. 21, 2020. About two
months into the semester, on March 12, 2020, Pratt ended in-person
classes in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The Plaintiffs,
along with other Pratt students, continued their semester through
online instruction, which was vital to ensure their health and
safety. They allege, however, that Pratt unlawfully retained
tuition and fees in violation of its promise to provide in-person
instruction and services. They assert claims for breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, and money had and
received, all on behalf of a putative class of students who paid
spring 2020 tuition and fees and who did not receive a refund.
Pratt moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety.
The Plaintiffs allege that Pratt promised them in-person
instruction in a variety of ways. First, they allege that the
spring 2020 course catalog provided that their courses would be
held in person. Indeed, they allege that the catalog permitted
students to search for classes that were "Not Online," and thus
clearly differentiated between in-person and online instruction.
Second, the Plaintiffs allege that Pratt markets its on-campus
experience on its website, emphasizing the appeal of Pratt's
offerings "inside the studio and classroom" and in New York City.
They claim that Pratt's remote offerings during the pandemic did
not provide them the "benefit of the bargain" for which they paid
tuition.
The Plaintiffs also allege that they paid various fees for services
that could only be provided in person. Those include fees for
ceramics and printmaking courses, student activities, health
services, and similar fees that were allegedly "designed to cover
the costs of in-person experiences." None of those services were
provided, the Plaintiffs allege, from the middle of March 2020
through the end of the semester.
For the fall 2020 to spring 2021 school year, Pratt reduced its
tuition by 7.5% and canceled several of its student fees for those
studying remotely. he reduction in fees alone totaled more than
$2,000. When announcing the fee reduction, Pratt explained that it
understood "that students who choose to study 100 percent remotely
online will not have the same access to services as the students
who will be on campus," and thus they would "not be charged the
fees typically associated with on-campus living and instruction."
The Plaintiffs claim that Pratt thereby admitted that it
"recognizes the reduced cost and reduced benefit of an online
education compared to in-person instruction" and that they should
therefore also receive a partial refund for the spring 2020
semester. They do not say, however, whether they continued to
enroll in Pratt for the fall 2020 to spring 2021 school year
despite knowing that at least some of their coursework might be
provided remotely.
For its part, Pratt emphasizes that the course catalog reserved the
right to "update and otherwise change" any material in the catalog,
including course offerings and other policies and procedures. He
also highlights its refund policy, which provides that students are
not entitled to refunds if they seek to withdraw after the third
week of the term.
Discussion
I. Plaintiffs May Pursue Their Claim for Breach of Contract Solely
As to Fees
Pratt argues that the plaintiffs' suit is barred at the outset
because New York law prohibits claims of "educational malpractice"
or because adjudicating the claims would otherwise intrude on
Pratt's academic freedom. The doctrine of educational malpractice
bars claims "that the school breached its agreement by failing to
provide an effective education," on the theory that "courts are an
inappropriate forum to test the efficacy of educational programs
and pedagogical methods."
Judge Korman holds that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that
they paid fees in spring 2020 for services that could only be
provided in person. As courts in the circuit have explained, those
allegations suffice to state a claim for breach of contract when
the school no longer provided those services come March 2020.
While the Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged a claim for breach
of contract as to in-person instruction, their pleadings are
sufficient with respect to the fees they paid for in-person
services. Those include fees for participation in ceramics,
sculpture, and printmaking courses, along with "other technical
arts programs." They also include fees that students paid for use
of campus facilities, health services, technology, and student
activities. Indeed, the Plaintiffs allege that Pratt has admitted
that these fees were paid for in-person services. For the fall
2020 to spring 2021 academic year, Pratt did not charge these fees
to students who were taking courses remotely.
II. Plaintiffs' Non-Contractual Claims Fail
The Plaintiffs' remaining claims lack merit, Judge Korman finds.
He says their unjust enrichment claim requires a showing that
"equity and good conscience require restitution." It is quite
implausible to view Pratt's suspension of in-person instruction as
inequitable. The Plaintiffs, who had already enjoyed half their
semester in person, continued to receive an education and credits
toward their degrees. On the facts pled, this is not close to a
case in which 'equity and good conscience' require restitution.
The unjust enrichment claim fails for the additional reason that
under New York law, "a party may not recover in unjust enrichment
where the parties have entered into a contract that governs the
subject matter." The Plaintiffs' relationship with Pratt—and the
alleged harm the Plaintiffs faced -- is governed by a contract, and
the unjust enrichment claim is therefore dismissed. The same is
true of the Plaintiffs' claim for money had and received, which
"lies only in the absence of an agreement."
Finally, the Plaintiffs' conversion claim fails for multiple
reasons. The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs did not respond to
Pratt's arguments for dismissal of this claim, and they have
therefore abandoned it. In any event, the Plaintiffs' conversion
claim is "predicated on a mere breach of contract" and therefore
fails as duplicative.
Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, Judge Korman granted in part and denied
in part the motion to dismiss. Pratt will answer the Amended
Complaint within 14 days.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 2, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/swwbeuj9 from Leagle.com.
PROCOLLECT INC: Tennessee Court Dismisses Kale FDCPA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SWAPNA KALE, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROCOLLECT, INC., and JOHN DOES
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-2776-SHM-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), Judge
Samuel H. Mays, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee, Western Division, granted ProCollect's Nov.
19, 2020 Motion to Dismiss.
Background
Plaintiff Kale brings the action under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692, et seq., on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. She seeks
relief from Defendants ProCollect and John Does 1-25. Kale incurred
a debt to Centennial Gardens Apartments. Centennial Gardens
Apartments contracted with ProCollect to collect the debt.
On April 21, 2020, ProCollect sent Kale a collection letter. The
Letter stated the amount Kale owed as $233.39. No information
about how much the fees might be was included in the letter.
On Oct. 26, 2020, Kale filed the Complaint. She alleges three
violations of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e. She alleges ProCollect
failed "to truthfully represent the amount of the debt in the
lawsuit pursuant to Section 1692[e](2)(A)." She alleges ProCollect
failed to "provide the notices required in an initial collection
letter in violation of Section 1692e(10). She alleges ProCollect
threatened to "take action (increasing the debt amount) that cannot
legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken in violation
of Section 1692e(5)."
Ms. Kale alleges two violations of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f. She
alleges ProCollect failed to state the amount of the debt and that
ProCollect threatened "that the amount of the debt may increase
even though it would not actually increase." Kale also alleges
ProCollect violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g by "failing to provide
the actual amount of the debt." Kale seeks actual and statutory
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.
On Nov. 19, 2020, ProCollect filed the instant Motion. ProCollect
argues that Kale lacks standing because she has failed to allege
facts demonstrating that she suffered a concrete injury that was
more than a bare procedural violation. It argues that, even if
Kale has standing, she has failed to allege facts sufficient to
demonstrate that ProCollect violated the FDCPA.
On Dec. 17, 2020, Kale responded. She argues that procedural
violations of the FDCPA are injuries sufficient to support
standing. She lists several other injuries she suffered. She
argues that the Complaint contains facts sufficient to state a
claim that ProCollect violated the FDCPA. Kale requests leave to
amend the Complaint, should the Court grant the Motion.
Jurisdiction
A. Federal Question Jurisdiction
Kale's claims arise under the FDCPA. Therefore, the Court has
federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, Judge
Mays. He says although Kale asserts that the Court has
supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1367(a), her Complaint alleges no state law claims.
B. Standing
ProCollect challenges Kale's standing pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). It raises both facial and factual
challenges to Kale's standing. Because ProCollect's facial
arguments resolve the standing issue, Judge Mays need not reach
ProCollect's factual arguments.
The dispute about standing in the case boils down to whether the
alleged procedural violations of the FDCPA, taken alone, are
injuries in fact. Kale pleads statutory violations. She pleads no
tangible injury.
Judge Mays says the Sixth Circuit has previously said that the
"risk-of-harm inquiry is the only way under Spokeo to show that a
statutory violation by itself is a concrete injury. The Supreme
Court recently clarified the risk-of-harm language in Spokeo, on
which the Sixth Circuit has relied. The Supreme Court held that
risk-of-harm analysis applies only in suits seeking injunctive
relief and cannot be used to establish standing in a suit for
damages, citing TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2021 WL
2599472, at *12-*13 (June 25, 2021). Because "Spokeo did not hold
that the mere risk of future harm, without more, suffices to
demonstrate Article III standing in a suit for damages," Kale lacks
standing to raise her FDCPA claims.
For these reasons, Judge Mays granted the Motion because Kale lacks
standing to bring and the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction
over Kale's FDCPA claims. Her claims are dismissed. The Court
need not evaluate ProCollect's Motion under Rule 12(b)(6) because
Kale lacks standing to bring her suit.
Leave to Amend
In her response to the Motion, Kale says that, "to the extent the
Court finds the harm is not sufficiently explicit or even implied
in the Complaint, the Plaintiff requests leave to amend to insert
more details of Plaintiff's injuries." The Plaintiff's conditional
request to amend the Complaint in her response is not a proper
motion to amend under Rule 15(a)."
ProCollect argues that Kale's request to amend the Complaint should
be denied because it would be futile. It makes no argument about
why amendment would be futile other than saying that the Plaintiff
will not be able to cure the defects in her standing and claims.
Without knowing the facts Kale intends to add to the Complaint
through the proposed amendment, Judge Mays cannot evaluate whether
the proposed amendment would be futile. He points out that
although Kale cites alleged injuries in her response that might be
grounds for the proposed amendment, she does not clarify which, if
any, of those injuries would be pled in an amended complaint. The
Judge cannot decide that amendment would not be futile without
knowing the substance of the proposed amendment.
In her conditional request, Kale asks for an advisory opinion to
which she is not entitled.
For these reasons, Kale's request to amend the Complaint is
denied.
Conclusion
Judge Mays granted the Motion. Kale's Complaint is dismissed. The
conditional request to amend the Complaint is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mjzbe5hy from Leagle.com.
PROVENTION BIO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 20 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on July 11 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.
ATER Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/aterian-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17549&wire=1
PRVB Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/provention-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17549&wire=1
WPG Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/washington-prime-group-inc-information-request-form?prid=17549&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Aterian, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATER)
ATER Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 1, 2020
- May 3, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : July 12, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/aterian-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17549&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, 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.
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=17549&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.
Washington Prime Group, Inc. (NYSE:WPG)
WPG Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 5, 2020
- March 4, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 23, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/washington-prime-group-inc-information-request-form?prid=17549&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Washington Prime Group, Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) WPG's
financial condition was deteriorating substantially; (2) as a
result, there was substantial uncertainty about the Company's
ability to meet its capital structure obligations as they became
due; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
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]
PURDUE PHARMA: Hancock County Votes to Accept Settlement Terms
--------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press reports that Hancock County Supervisors voted to
accept the terms of a Purdue Pharma proposed settlement plan this
week, but County Attorney Blake Norman said county coffers are not
expected to see an influx of dollars any time soon.
That will be the case for all the counties in North Iowa that
joined in the class action lawsuit against the Oxycontin maker.
In December 2020, Hancock County, and then Winnebago County
supervisors, joined many counties across Iowa and the nation in
signing papers to join class-action litigation seeking damages from
a long list of opioid manufacturers, distributors, and chain
pharmacies/dispensers. The legal action stems from opioid epidemics
that have adversely impacted counties, cities, and services in Iowa
and across the United States.
In November 2019, Cerro Gordo County opted out of joining the
suit.
At the time, County Attorney Carlyle Dalen acknowledged that the
opioid crisis has been "a big topic throughout our country" but
also mentioned that staying in any one class-action case could
exclude the county from other benefits.
"We are just one of thousands of litigants," Norman said. "This is
very large, like big tobacco suits and asbestos, too, would be
similar, but this proposed settlement pertains to just one of many
pharmaceutical companies and this fifth version of this particular
settlement could be rejected by a federal judge. There could be
more versions."
Both Mitchell and Worth counties also signed on to the suit in
2018, encouraged by the Iowa State Association of Counties.
Hancock's Norman noted there is no specific dollar amount or even
percentage for any county attached to the proposed settlement. He
said Iowa will probably see less than 1 percent of the division of
funds and that counsel for participating Iowa counties will work
closely with Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller and his team for the
determination of any future allocations.
"There is nothing written in stone that Hancock County will receive
X percentage of X amount," Norman said. "There is not much going on
yet. This is a proposed settlement plan that may or may not go
forward. I'm sure we'll be able to get some dollars sometime. We
may have more things to bring before the board of supervisors over
the next few years."
Meanwhile, a plan from Purdue Pharma to reorganize into a new
entity that helps combat the nation's opioid epidemic got a big
boost as 15 states -- including Iowa -- suing the company now
support the new business model.
The agreement from multiple state attorneys general, including
those who had most aggressively opposed maker Purdue Phama's
original proposal, was disclosed on July 7 in a filing in U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in White Plains, N.Y. It followed weeks of intense
mediation that resulted in changes to Purdue's original plan.
Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said resolving the lawsuit against
Purdue and its Sackler family owners will require the Sacklers to
pay more than $4.3 billion for prevention, treatment and recovery
efforts across the country.
"No settlement could ever be enough to make up for the misconduct
by the Sacklers and the company," the Democratic attorney general
said in a statement "This agreement is in the best interests of
Iowans, however, and will go a long way toward abating the opioid
crisis the defendants helped create."
The Sacklers would pay $4.325 billion over the next nine years as
part of the agreement. Exact funding distributions are yet to be
determined, but Iowa expects to receive an estimated $25 million
for abatement of the opioid epidemic, according to Miller's office.
Thousands of individual victims of Purdue's misconduct also will
receive compensation as part of the bankruptcy process.
In May 2019, Iowa sued Purdue Pharma and its former president and
board chairman, Richard Sackler, alleging that the drug company
engaged in unfair, deceptive and unlawful practices in the
marketing of OxyContin. The lawsuit alleged that Purdue officials
repeatedly made false and deceptive claims that OxyContin was safe
and suitable for a wide range of pain patients.
Purdue filed for bankruptcy protection after Iowa and other states
filed similar suits.
The company's latest plan also calls for members of the Sackler
family to give up ownership of the Connecticut-based company as
part of a sweeping deal it says could be worth $10 billion over
time. That includes the value of overdose-reversal drugs the
company is planning to produce.
Most groups representing various creditors, including victims and
local governments, had grudgingly supported the plan. But state
attorneys general until now were divided.
The support from additional states comes less than two weeks before
a deadline to object formally to Purdue's reorganization plan and
about a month before a hearing on whether it should be accepted.
With just nine states and the District of Columbia remaining
opposed to the plan, it makes it more likely the federal bankruptcy
judge will confirm the deal.
Rod Boshart from The Gazette Des Moines Bureau contributed to this
report. [GN]
R&J ENTERTAINMENT: Newman Suit Moved to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Loretta Newman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Petitioner v. R&J ENTERTAINMENT LLC
D/B/A TRAPPED ESCAPE ROOM, TRAPPED! LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company individually and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Respondents; HOUSTON CASUALTY COMPANY, a Texas
Corporation, Interested Party Case No. 4:20-cv-03782, was moved
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 14,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-13649 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Motion
to Quash.
Trapped! Escape Room -- https://trappedescaperoom.com/ -- is an
escape room that has multiple locations on the West Coast.[BN]
The Petitioner is represented by:
James Irving McClammy, Esq.
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL
450 LEXINGTON AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 450-4000
Email: james.mcclammy@davispolk.com
RED DOOR GROUP: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Red Door Group LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Terry Fabricant, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Red Door Group LLC doing
business as: Red Door Capital Group, Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
and each of them, Case No. 2:21-cv-05706 (C.D. Cal., July 14,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Red Door Capital Group -- http://rdgllc.com/-- are financial
consultants provides financial solutions that give the freedom to
build a better future.[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
REKOR SYSTEMS: Block & Leviton Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton on July 12 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Rekor Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: REKR) f/k/a
Novume Solutions, Inc. (NVMM) and certain of its officers for
securities fraud. Investors who purchased Rekor shares between
April 12, 2019 and May 25, 2021 and lost money are strongly
encouraged to contact Block & Leviton attorneys at (617) 398-5600,
via email at cases@blockleviton.com or to visit our website for
more information on the case.
Rekor Systems develops and distributes automatic license plate
recognition technology. On May 26, 2021, investment analyst Western
Edge issued a report stating that Rekor Systems' "realized results
suggest management's potential revenue guidance could be overstated
by up to 80%." The report raised additional concerns about the
program's economic feasibility and the costs associated in the
absence of a robust process for levying and collecting fines from
violators. On the same day, another independent analyst, Mariner
Research Group, issued its own detailed report outlining numerous
false statements made by the CEO about the Company's projected
revenue from future contracts with the State of Oklahoma. In
January 2021, the CEO had announced a revenue opportunity of $45
million over the life of a three-year contract with the State which
in actuality amounted to $1.6 million over the same period. On this
news, share prices dropped 3.9%.
The deadline to seek appointment as lead plaintiff is August 30,
2021. A class has not yet been certified, and until a certification
occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to
take no action, you can remain an absent class member.
Many law firms have issued releases about this matter; most of
those firms do not actually litigate securities class actions.
Block & Leviton is a law firm that actually litigates cases. We are
dedicated to obtaining significant recoveries on behalf of
defrauded investors through active litigation in the federal courts
across the country. Many of the nation's top institutional
investors hire us to represent their interests. You can learn more
about us at our website, www.blockleviton.com, or call (617)
398-5600 or email cases@blockleviton.com with any questions.
This notice may constitute attorney advertising.
CONTACT:
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin St., Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 398-5600
Email: cases@blockleviton.com
SOURCE: Block & Leviton LLP
www.blockleviton.com [GN]
ROCKET COMPANIES: Faces Qaiyum Suit Over 17% Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
ZOYA QAIYUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROCKET COMPANIES, INC., JAY D. FARNER, JULIE
R. BOOTH, ROBERT DEAN WALTERS and DANIEL GILBERT, Defendants, Case
No. 2:21-cv-11528-PDB-APP (E.D. Mich., June 29, 2021) is a
securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Rocket Class
A common stock between February 25, 2021 and May 5, 2021, both
dates inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against Rocket and certain of the Company's
senior officers and directors.
According to the complaint, the Defendants had made materially
false and misleading statements because they misrepresented and
failed to disclose the adverse facts about Rocket's business,
operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them, as follows: (a) that Rocket's gain
on sale margins were contracting at the highest rate in two years
as a result of increased competition among mortgage lenders, an
unfavorable shift toward the lower margin Partner Network operating
segment and compression in the price spread between the primary and
secondary mortgage markets; (b) that Rocket was engaged in a price
war and battle for market share with its primary competitors in the
wholesale market, which was further compressing margins in Rocket's
Partner Network operating segment; (c) that the adverse trends
identified were accelerating and, as a result, Rocket's gain on
sale margins were on track to plummet at least 140 basis points in
the first six months of 2021; (d) that the favorable market
conditions that had preceded the Class Period and allowed Rocket to
achieve historically high gain on sale margins had vanished as the
Company's gain on sale margins had returned to levels not seen
since the first quarter of 2019; (e) that, rather than remaining
elevated due to surging demand, Rocket's Company-wide gain-on-sale
margins had fallen materially below recent historical averages; and
(f) that as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business operations and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
As a result, the price of Rocket Class A common stock dropped from
$22.80 per share when the market closed on May 5, 2021 to $19.01
per share when the market closed on May 6, 2021, a nearly 17%
decline, on very heavy volume of over 37 million shares traded. As
the market continued to digest the news in the days that followed,
the price of Rocket Class A common stock continued to decline,
falling to a low of just $16.48 per share by May 11, 2021, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff and other Class members have allegedly suffered
significant losses and damages as a result of the Defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the
market value of Rocket Class A common stock.
Rocket Companies, Inc. is an online mortgage lender.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 West University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
ssa@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 674-4674
Facsimile: (312) 674-4676
E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Vicki Multer Diamond, 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
vdiamond@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Michael I. Fistel, Jr.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
40 Powder Springs Street
Marietta, GA 30064
Telephone: (470) 632-6000
Facsimile: (770) 200-3101
E-mail: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com
SALINE COUNTY, AR: Bid for Class Certification in Baker Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICHOLAS BAKER, Plaintiff, v. RODNEY WRIGHT, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00552-JM-PSH (E.D. Ark.), Magistrate
Judge Patricia S. Harris of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, Central Division, denied the Plaintiff's
motion to join other lawsuits and proceed as a class action under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant Rodney Wright is the Sheriff of Saline County, Arkansas.
Judge Harris explains that one or more members of a class may sue
or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only
if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. She says an action may be maintained as a
class action only when all of the prerequisites of subdivision (a)
are satisfied. The Plaintiff has the burden of showing that the
claimed class should be certified and that the requirements set
forth are met.
The Judge holds that the Plaintiff does not identify the class he
seeks to certify; she presumes he is referring to the many
plaintiffs listed on the original complaint. Additionally, she
finds that the Plaintiff has offered no evidence to support a
finding that the class he seeks to certify is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable. He also has failed to
offer evidence to support a finding that issues common to the class
predominate over issues that differ among individual members of the
class. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not met his burden to show
that the class should be certified.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/rats7j5s from Leagle.com.
SALINE COUNTY, AR: Bid for Class Certification in Smith Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BOBBY SMITH, Plaintiff v. RODNEY WRIGHT, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00542-JM-PSH (E.D. Ark.), Magistrate
Judge Patricia S. Harris of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, Central Division, denied the Plaintiff's
motion to join other lawsuits and proceed as a class action under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant Rodney Wright is the Sheriff of Saline County, Arkansas.
Judge Harris explains that one or more members of a class may sue
or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only
if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. She says an action may be maintained as a
class action only when all of the prerequisites of subdivision (a)
are satisfied. The Plaintiff has the burden of showing that the
claimed class should be certified and that the requirements set
forth are met.
The Judge holds that the Plaintiff does not identify the class he
seeks to certify; she presumes he is referring to the many
plaintiffs listed on the original complaint. Additionally, she
finds that the Plaintiff has offered no evidence to support a
finding that the class he seeks to certify is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable. He also has failed to
offer evidence to support a finding that issues common to the class
predominate over issues that differ among individual members of the
class. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not met his burden to show
that the class should be certified.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4ewk4t96 from Leagle.com.
SALINE COUNTY, AR: Bid to Certify Class in Hooker Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RUSSELL HOOKER, Plaintiff, v. RODNEY WRIGHT, et al.,
Defendants, Case No: 4:21-cv-00544-JM-PSH (E.D. Ark.), Magistrate
Judge Patricia S. Harris of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, Central Division, denied the Plaintiff's
motion to join other lawsuits and proceed as a class action under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant Rodney Wright is the Sheriff of Saline County, Arkansas.
Judge Harris explains that one or more members of a class may sue
or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only
if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. She says an action may be maintained as a
class action only when all of the prerequisites of subdivision (a)
are satisfied. The Plaintiff has the burden of showing that the
claimed class should be certified and that the requirements set
forth are met.
The Judge holds that the Plaintiff does not identify the class he
seeks to certify; she presumes he is referring to the many
plaintiffs listed on the original complaint. Additionally, she
finds that the Plaintiff has offered no evidence to support a
finding that the class he seeks to certify is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable. He also has failed to
offer evidence to support a finding that issues common to the class
predominate over issues that differ among individual members of the
class. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not met his burden to show
that the class should be certified.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2pmy4937 from Leagle.com.
SALINE COUNTY, AR: Bid to Certify Class in Moore Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SAMUEL MOORE III, Plaintiff v. RODNEY WRIGHT, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00566-JM-PSH (E.D. Ark.), Magistrate
Judge Patricia S. Harris of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, Central Division, denied the Plaintiff's
motion to join other lawsuits and proceed as a class action under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant Rodney Wright is the Sheriff of Saline County, Arkansas.
Judge Harris explains that one or more members of a class may sue
or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only
if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. She says an action may be maintained as a
class action only when all of the prerequisites of subdivision (a)
are satisfied. The Plaintiff has the burden of showing that the
claimed class should be certified and that the requirements set
forth are met.
The Judge holds that the Plaintiff does not identify the class he
seeks to certify; she presumes he is referring to the many
plaintiffs listed on the original complaint. Additionally, she
finds that the Plaintiff has offered no evidence to support a
finding that the class he seeks to certify is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable. He also has failed to
offer evidence to support a finding that issues common to the class
predominate over issues that differ among individual members of the
class. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not met his burden to show
that the class should be certified.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/t8nrbvh2 from Leagle.com.
SALINE COUNTY, AR: Bid to Certify Class in Roberts Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN ROBERTS, Plaintiff v. RODNEY WRIGHT, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00551-JM-PSH (E.D. Ark.), Magistrate
Judge Patricia S. Harris of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, Central Division, denied the Plaintiff's
motion to join other lawsuits and proceed as a class action under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant Rodney Wright is the Sheriff of Saline County, Arkansas.
Judge Harris explains that one or more members of a class may sue
or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only
if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. She says an action may be maintained as a
class action only when all of the prerequisites of subdivision (a)
are satisfied. The Plaintiff has the burden of showing that the
claimed class should be certified and that the requirements set
forth are met.
The Judge holds that the Plaintiff does not identify the class he
seeks to certify; she presumes he is referring to the many
plaintiffs listed on the original complaint. Additionally, she
finds that the Plaintiff has offered no evidence to support a
finding that the class he seeks to certify is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable. He also has failed to
offer evidence to support a finding that issues common to the class
predominate over issues that differ among individual members of the
class. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not met his burden to show
that the class should be certified.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bmnnfbmp from Leagle.com.
SALINE COUNTY, AR: Bid to Certify Class in Upperman Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AARON UPPERMAN, Plaintiff v. RODNEY WRIGHT, et al.,
Defendants, Case No: 4:21-cv-00549-JM-PSH (E.D. Ark.), Magistrate
Judge Patricia S. Harris of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, Central Division, denied the Plaintiff's
motion to join other lawsuits and proceed as a class action under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant Rodney Wright is the Sheriff of Saline County, Arkansas.
Judge Harris explains that one or more members of a class may sue
or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only
if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. She says an action may be maintained as a
class action only when all of the prerequisites of subdivision (a)
are satisfied. The Plaintiff has the burden of showing that the
claimed class should be certified and that the requirements set
forth are met.
The Judge holds that the Plaintiff does not identify the class he
seeks to certify; she presumes he is referring to the many
plaintiffs listed on the original complaint. Additionally, she
finds that the Plaintiff has offered no evidence to support a
finding that the class he seeks to certify is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable. He also has failed to
offer evidence to support a finding that issues common to the class
predominate over issues that differ among individual members of the
class. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not met his burden to show
that the class should be certified.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/55ntrbby from Leagle.com.
SALINE COUNTY, AR: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Garner Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN GARNER, Plaintiff v. RODNEY WRIGHT, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00550-JM-PSH (E.D. Ark.), Magistrate
Judge Patricia S. Harris of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, Central Division, denied the Plaintiff's
motion to join other lawsuits and proceed as a class action under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant Rodney Wright is the Sheriff of Saline County, Arkansas.
Judge Harris explains that one or more members of a class may sue
or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only
if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. She says an action may be maintained as a
class action only when all of the prerequisites of subdivision (a)
are satisfied. The Plaintiff has the burden of showing that the
claimed class should be certified and that the requirements set
forth are met.
The Judge holds that the Plaintiff does not identify the class he
seeks to certify; she presumes he is referring to the many
plaintiffs listed on the original complaint. Additionally, she
finds that the Plaintiff has offered no evidence to support a
finding that the class he seeks to certify is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable. He also has failed to
offer evidence to support a finding that issues common to the class
predominate over issues that differ among individual members of the
class. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not met his burden to show
that the class should be certified.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yk8z3th7 from Leagle.com.
SALINE COUNTY, AR: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Mercer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CALVIN MERCER, Plaintiff, v. RODNEY WRIGHT, et al.,
Defendants, Case No: 4:21-cv-00545-JM-PSH (E.D. Ark.), Magistrate
Judge Patricia S. Harris of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, Central Division, denied the Plaintiff's
motion to join other lawsuits and proceed as a class action under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant Rodney Wright is the Sheriff of Saline County, Arkansas.
Judge Harris explains that one or more members of a class may sue
or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only
if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. She says an action may be maintained as a
class action only when all of the prerequisites of subdivision (a)
are satisfied. The Plaintiff has the burden of showing that the
claimed class should be certified and that the requirements set
forth are met.
The Judge holds that the Plaintiff does not identify the class he
seeks to certify; she presumes he is referring to the many
plaintiffs listed on the original complaint. Additionally, she
finds that the Plaintiff has offered no evidence to support a
finding that the class he seeks to certify is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable. He also has failed to
offer evidence to support a finding that issues common to the class
predominate over issues that differ among individual members of the
class. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not met his burden to show
that the class should be certified.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/aypkbt5v from Leagle.com.
SALINE COUNTY, AR: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Vaughn Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT VAUGHN, Plaintiff, v. RODNEY WRIGHT, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00553-JM-PSH (E.D. Ark.), Magistrate
Judge Patricia S. Harris of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, Central Division, denied the Plaintiff's
motion to join other lawsuits and proceed as a class action under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant Rodney Wright is the Sheriff of Saline County, Arkansas.
Judge Harris explains that one or more members of a class may sue
or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only
if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. She says an action may be maintained as a
class action only when all of the prerequisites of subdivision (a)
are satisfied. The Plaintiff has the burden of showing that the
claimed class should be certified and that the requirements set
forth are met.
The Judge holds that the Plaintiff does not identify the class he
seeks to certify; she presumes he is referring to the many
plaintiffs listed on the original complaint. Additionally, she
finds that the Plaintiff has offered no evidence to support a
finding that the class he seeks to certify is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable. He also has failed to
offer evidence to support a finding that issues common to the class
predominate over issues that differ among individual members of the
class. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not met his burden to show
that the class should be certified.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/j8vafx6m from Leagle.com.
SAS INSTITUTE: Heathcote Appeals Ruling in Cahoo Insurance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Suzette Marie Heathcote filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit PATTI JO CAHOO, KRISTEN MENDYK,
KHADIJA COLE, HYON PAK, and MICHELLE DAVISON, Plaintiffs v. SAS
INSTITUTE INC., FAST ENTERPRISES LLC, CSG GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS,
STEPHEN GESKEY, SHEMIN BLUNDELL, DORIS MITCHELL, DEBRA SINGLETON,
and SHARON MOFFET-MASSEY, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-10657, in
the in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
at Detroit.
The Plaintiffs in this case have commenced the putative class
action to recover damages allegedly caused by the State of
Michigan's Unemployment Insurance Agency's ("UIA") implementation
of an automated system to detect and punish individuals who
submitted fraudulent unemployment insurance claims. The automated
fraud detection computer application that the UIA implemented
sometime around 2013 was known as the Michigan Integrated Data
Automated System ("MiDAS"). MiDAS was developed to search for
discrepancies in the records of unemployment compensation
recipients, automatically determine whether the claimants committed
fraud, and execute collection proceedings, which included
intercepting tax refunds and garnishing wages.
The Plaintiffs say that they are victims of the system's many
failures: it lacked human oversight, it detected fraud by certain
claimants where none existed, it provided little or no notice to
the accused claimants, it failed in many instances to allow
administrative appeals, and it assessed penalties and forfeitures
against individuals who were blameless.
Ms. Heathcote now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated May 20,
2021, denying her motion for reconsideration.
The appellate case is captioned as Patti Cahoo, et al. v. SAS
Institute Inc., et al., Case No. 21-2672, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on June 30,
2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant SUZETTE MARIE HEATHCOTE is represented by:
David M. Blanchard, Esq.
BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
101 N. Main Street, Suite 555
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (734) 663-7550
Defendants-Appellees FAST ENTERPRISES, LLC, CSG GOVERNMENT
SOLUTIONS, STEVEN GESKEY, and SHARON MOFFET-MASSEY are represented
by:
Walter J. Piszczatowski, Esq.
HERTZ SCHRAM
1760 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 300
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
Telephone: (248) 335-5000
E-mail: wallyp@hertzschram.com
- and -
Stephen J. Rosenfeld, Esq.
MCDONALD HOPKINS
300 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 280-0111
E-mail: srosenfeld@mandellmenkes.com
- and -
Erik F. Stidham, Esq.
HOLLAND & HART
800 W. Main Street, Suite 1750
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: (208) 342-5000
E-mail: efstidham@hollandhart.com
- and -
Kimberly K. Pendrick, Esq.
Debbie K. Taylor, Esq.
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
3030 W. Grand Boulevard, Suite 9-600
Detroit, MI 48202
Telephone: (313) 456-2200
E-mail: pendrickk@michigan.gov
SAYER LAW: Deadline to file Class Cert. Bid Extended to August 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY THOME v. SAYER LAW
GROUP PC, Case No. 20-CV-3058-CJW-KEM (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge
Kelly K.E. Mahoney entered an order that the Plaintiff's motion to
amend the scheduling order is granted in part and denied in part.
The deadline to file a class certification motion is extended to
Monday, August 2, 2021.
THe Court said, "The Plaintiff initiated this putative class action
in December 2020, alleging that Defendant Sayer Law Group PC
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The
proposed scheduling order was originally due in early March 2021,
but the parties did not submit it until more than a month later, on
April 9, 2021. Judge Mahoney held a scheduling conference and set
the following deadlines:
-- Initial Disclosures: May 5, 2021
-- Class Certification Motion: July 1, 2021
-- Plaintiff's Expert Disclosures: September 1, 2021
-- Defendant's Expert Disclosures: November 1, 2021
-- Plaintiff's Rebuttal Expert December 1, 2021
Disclosures:
-- Discovery Completion: January 3, 2022
-- Dispositive Motions: January 14, 2022
-- Trial Ready Date: June 13, 2022
The Sayer Law Group, PC is a professional law firm in Waterloo,
Iowa.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hH8RFS at no extra charge.[CC]
SHIFTPIXY INC: Splond Wage-and-Hour Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
ShiftPixy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 15, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2021, that the company continues to
defend itself against a class action suit initiated by Corey
Splond.
On April 8, 2019, claimant, Corey Splond, filed a class action
lawsuit, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, in the Eighth Judicial District Court for the State of
Nevada, Clark County, naming the Company and its client as
defendants, and alleging violations of certain wage and hour laws.
This lawsuit is in the initial stages, and the Company denies any
liability. Even if the plaintiff ultimately prevails, the potential
damages recoverable will depend substantially upon whether the
Court determines in the future that this lawsuit may appropriately
be maintained as a class action.
Further, in the event that the Court ultimately enters a judgment
in favor of plaintiff, the Company believes that it would be
contractually entitled to be indemnified by its client against at
least a portion of any damage award.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
ShiftPixy, Inc. provides employment services for businesses; and
workers in shift or other part-time/temporary positions in the
United States. The company also operates as a payroll processor,
human resources consultant, and administrator of workers'
compensation coverages and claims. It primarily serves restaurant,
hospitality, and maintenance service industries.
SNAP INC: K.F.C. Appeals BIPA Class Action Lawsuit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff K.F.C., a minor, by and through her guardian, ERIN CLARK,
filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled
K.F.C., a minor, by and though her guardian, ERIN CLARK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SNAP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-9-DWD, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff K.F.C. is a thirteen-year-old
resident of Illinois. On January 4, 2019, Plaintiff created an
account on Snapchat, which is a camera application created by
Defendant Snap, Inc. that enables users to communicate with short
videos and images. To create the account, it was necessary for
Plaintiff to click on a button to express her assent to Snapchat's
Terms of Service. While the parties dispute when Plaintiff stopped
using Snapchat, the Terms of Service in effect while Plaintiff was
using Snapchat included an arbitration agreement. On November 17,
2020, Plaintiff filed this action against Snap in Illinois state
court, alleging that two Snapchat features, "Lenses" and "Filters,"
use scans of facial geometry and violated her rights under the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Judgment dated June
7, 2021, and Court's Order dated June 10, 2021, granting
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismissing the case
without prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as K.F.C. v. Snap, Inc., Case No.
21-2247, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,
filed on July 7, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Docketing Statement was due for Appellant K.F.C. last July
13, 2021;
-- Transcript information sheet is due by July 21, 2021; and
-- Appellant's brief is due on or before August 16, 2021 for
K.F.C.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant K.F.C., a minor, by and through her guardian,
ERIN CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, is represented by:
Matthew E. Lee, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS COLEMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27605
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
E-mail: mlee@milberg.com
Defendant-Appellee SNAP, INC. is represented by:
Elizabeth Brooke Herrington, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
110 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 324-1445
SONY MUSIC: Class Action Over Corporate Culture Receives Enquiries
------------------------------------------------------------------
Vivienne Kelly, writing for The Music Network, reports that
Macdougall & Hydes Lawyers, the firm weighing up a class action
against Sony Music Australia, has said it has been overwhelmed by
the amount of enquiries from former staff members.
The major label hit the headlines when long-serving CEO Denis
Handlin was sacked, and questions remain about the allegedly toxic
culture which was allowed to thrive within the organisation.
News of the potential class action broke last month, with a number
of former employees reportedly considering their legal options.
Lauren MacDougall then encouraged more people to come forward so
the firm could assess its potential.
Since the original article on The Sydney Morning Herald, MacDougall
said she had been inundated with responses.
"There was and continues to be an overwhelming response to the SMH
article… with about 40+ people contacting me over the past few
days," MacDougall told TMN recently.
"Class actions are not straight forward, and a decision to
institute one depends on so many factors. In short, it is far too
soon to confirm the position when I have not had sufficient time to
respond to all of the people that have contacted me to ascertain
what their position is and what their expectations are."
You can hear more about the allegations, and what might be next for
Sony Music Australia, in the recently launched TMN Talks podcast.
[GN]
SUBARU CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Battery Problems
-------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Subaru
battery lawsuit in Canada alleges owners of these models must
constantly replace the batteries when they drain.
2015-2019 Subaru Outback
2015-2019 Subaru WRX
2015-2019 Subaru Forester
2015-2019 Subaru Legacy
2019 Subaru Ascent
The plaintiff who filed the class action lawsuit purchased a 2016
Subaru Outback in British Columbia in March 2017.
The plaintiff says the Outback had only 6,560 kilometers on it when
the electrical system had problems, including with the passenger
window and the battery draining after leaving the power tailgate
open for 15 minutes.
In June 2019 the vehicle wouldn't start so the plaintiff had the
Subaru towed to a dealer where the technician gave the battery a
boost and told the plaintiff he needed a new battery. The Outback
owner says he took the advice and purchased a new battery and
battery charger.
In July 2019 dealer technicians determined the battery was at
medium health and no parasitic drain was found. But the plaintiff
says he has charged the battery twice and had to use a spare
battery on numerous occasions.
The Subaru battery lawsuit also alleges the plaintiff paid about
$500 of his own money only to suffer "significant anxiety."
According to the battery class action lawsuit, the plaintiff
wouldn't have purchased the Outback if he would have known about
the alleged electrical problems.
Those alleged electrical problems cause continuous parasitic
battery drain and failure, forcing Subaru owners to continuously
replace the batteries. The Subaru battery lawsuit alleges
dealerships typically tell customers the batteries simply need to
be recharged. The plaintiff further claims this is Subaru's way to
evade its warranty obligations.
According to the battery class action, the electrical and battery
problems cause diminished resale values because Subaru refuses to
recall the vehicles and repair the alleged electrical defects.
Additionally, Subaru hasn't offered to reimburse owners for
expenses related to the battery problems.
The Subaru vehicles allegedly have a continuous parasitic drain of
3 to 4 amps, which allegedly means a 40-amp-hour battery has the
capacity to deliver 3.5 amps per hour of charge for only 11.4
hours, while the 40-amp-hour battery will have the capacity to
deliver 3.5 amps of power for only 17.7 hours.
"Consequently, if the vehicles were not started and batteries
charged within these time periods (11.4 to 17.7 hours) then the
batteries would completely drain, thus potentially leaving Class
members stranded. Over time, the battery capacity will degrade due
to sulfation of the battery and shedding of active material." —
Subaru battery lawsuit
The Subaru battery lawsuit alleges dealers have been issued several
technical service bulletins, including TSBs 07-89-15R, 07-106-16,
11-174-17R, 11-175-17 and 11-176-17.
The Subaru battery lawsuit was filed in the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice: Steven Scott, v. Subaru Canada, Inc., et al.
The plaintiff is represented by McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP.
The Canadian Subaru battery lawsuit joins similar class action
lawsuits filed in the U.S. and consolidated into, In re Subaru
Battery Drain Products Liability Litigation. [GN]
SUNY ALBANY: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Duguid Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIELLE DUGUID, et al., Plaintiffs v. STATE
UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK at ALBANY, and MARK BENSON, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-1092 (TJM/DJS) (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Thomas J. McAvoy of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York:
-- granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment;
-- denied the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment; and
-- denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The case originated in claims by former members of the women's
tennis team at the State University of New York at Albany
("SUNY-Albany") that the University violated their rights under
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 when the University
cancelled the women's tennis program in the spring of 2016.
Plaintiff Gordon Graham, who coached the team, joined the suit,
adding claims that the University discriminated against him because
of his sex and violated his right to equal protection when the
University fired him because of his age. All of the former tennis
players have either graduated or left the University, and they have
now been replaced by other plaintiffs, who contend that the
University violated Title IX by failing to provide women with
opportunities to participate in intercollegiate athletics in
numbers proportionate to their representation in the student body.
They seek injunctive relief to address this situation. Gordon
Graham's employment discrimination claims remain in the case.
The Defendants assert that they decided to discontinue women's
tennis at SUNY-Albany "based on a lack of Division 1 competition
opportunities." Defendants' Statement of Material Facts Pursuant to
Local Rule 7.1(a)(3). SUNY-Albany had participated in the America
East Conference ("AEC") since the University began competing in
division one, but several members of the conference had eliminated
women's tennis, and after 2015 the AEC no longer had the number of
teams necessary for automatic qualification to the NCAA tournament.
The conference therefore stopped sponsoring women's tennis.
The Plaintiffs contend that the University decided to eliminate the
women's tennis team because: (a) of the sex of the players; (b) of
the national origins of the players, most of whom came from foreign
countries; (c) as part of SUNY-Ablany's established practice of
favoring men's over women's intercollegiate athletics; (d) as a way
to save money; and (e) "the expectation that the tennis team's
65-year-old head coach would retire." They also contend that the
University did not make serious efforts to explore ways to provide
competitive opportunities for women's tennis players outside of the
America East Conference, where the team had participated.
The Plaintiffs also contend that the Defendants' attempt to find
"alternatives that would allow the women's tennis team to establish
opportunities for Division I national tournament participation"
were not substantial, and that the Defendants prevented Coach
Graham from learning of the team's precarious situation or using
his connections to help arrange competition. They also contend
that another women's tennis team in the EAC found a new conference
home "by agreeing to transfer its football team's participation to
the conference as well."
The Defendants claim that the University's decision to disband the
women's tennis team allowed "the department to re-invest and
strengthen the positioning of the other sponsored women's sports
programs." Other programs, SUNY-Albany concluded, would be able to
add to their "operational budges, elevate part-time coaching
positions to full-time and increase head and assistant coaches'
salaries to become more alligned with their experience, success,
and market value."
Gordon Graham continued to be employed at SUNY-Albany until his
contract expired in August 2017. They claim that they honored
Graham's employment contract. The Plaintiffs deny this claim,
contending that the Defendants "employed Graham to work as the head
coach of the women's varsity tennis team," which the Defendants
"wrongfully terminated." Once they terminated the team, the
Plaintiffs claim, the Defendants "substantially reduced" the
Plaintiff's "duties and responsibilities and threatened him with
even more menial and debasing jobs if he complained."
SUNY-Albany entered into a Resolution Agreement with the Office of
Civil Rights ("OCR") in the United States Department of Education
in August 2017. The Plaintiffs add that OCR investigated
SUNY-Albany's varsity intercollegiate sports programs and concluded
"`that the University failed to establish that it had effectively
accommodated the athletic interests and abilities of women, the
underrepresented sex, as required by the regulations implementing
Title IX, at 34 C.F.R. Section 106.41(e)(1)." SUNY-Albany did not
admit to any Title IX violations in signing the Resolution
Agreement.
The parties disagree in their interpretation of the Resolution
Agreement. According to the Defendants, the Agreement establishes
that OCR will monitor SUNY-Albany through "at least" the 2020-2021
academic year. Further, they contend that the Agreement permits
OCR to "question or challenge any action by SUNY Albany that may
interfere with its ability to satisfy the terms of the Resolution
Agreement." They claim that, should the University fail to
"satisfy" the requirements of the Agrement by the end of the
Agreement's term, "OCR has the ability to extend the period for
which it monitors SUNY Albany and ultimately seek to take away its
federal funding received via the U.S. Department of Education,
including federal student loans."
The Plaintiffs disagree that the Agreement provides for
"monitoring" of the University by OCR. They claim that the
Agreement fails to "state that OCR will actively or otherwise
monitor SUNY Albany's activities. The Agreement states only, the
Plaintiffs insists, that "the University understands that OCR will
not close the monitoring of this Agreement until OCR determines
that the University has fulfilled the terms of this Agreement and
is in compliance with the regulations implementing Title IX, at 34
C.F.R. Sections 106.41(a) and(c)(1), which were at issue in this
case.'" The Plaintiffs also point out that no evidence exists that
any of the University's "communications to OCR since the Resolution
Agreement was signed have been acknowledged by the agency."
Moreover, no evidence demonstrates that OCR has acknowledged or
approved SUNY-Albany's policies for adding a sport. They agree
that OCR could take enforcement action under the Agreement, but
point out that no evidence indicates that OCR has done so.
Analysis
Before the Court are the parties' motions for summary judgment and
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
A. Title IX
The Defendants first seek summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' Title
IX claims. They do not address whether evidence exists that could
reasonably demonstrate that SUNY-Albany violated Title IX by
failing to provide sufficient intercollegiate athletic
opportunities to women. Instead, they argue that the Resolution
Agreement vitiates any need for this Court to provide the
injunctive relief the Plaintiffs seek. They also assert that
Plaintiffs, who have not disclosed any expert testimony, cannot
prove their claims without such evidence. The Defendants further
contend that the student-Plaintiffs now in the case-women who seek
to have the opportunity to participate on an intercollegiate rowing
team-lack standing to sue because they have no legitimate
expectation of membership on any team established.
The Defendants argue that the Court should defer to the negotiated
Resolution Agreement and decline to provide any injunctive relief
that would interfere with the operation of that Agreement. The
Plaintiffs respond that Title IX contains an implied private right
of action to enforce the rights guaranteed under the law, and that
"the idea that they could be dispossessed of that right, or have it
delayed indefinitely, by the mere existence of an 'agreement' to
which the affected individuals were not even parties," would
undermine that right of action.
The Plaintiffs now ask the Court to order SUNY-Albany to take
action to establish opportunities for women, to report on those
efforts, and to end discrimination against women in athletics all
of which the Resolution Agreement described above covers. They
also ask the Court to enjoin the University from eliminating any
women's sports and to appoint a special master to supervise
SUNY-Albany's compliance with the Court's directives.
Judge McAvoy holds that the Plaintiffs cannot obtain the injunctive
relief they seek. First, even if he concluded that an injunction
was necessary, the Judge could not provide all of the relief that
the Plaintiffs seek. He says, courts have concluded that Title IX
does not permit a court to require particular positive actions to
satisfy the statute's requirements. Thus, ordering the University
to comply with the Plaintiffs' demand that the institution
establish more teams for women, when the University might comply
with Title IX by eliminating men's positions, would not satisfy the
law. More important, providing injunctive relief under these
circumstances would undermine the OCR's enforcement powers,
interfere with an agreement between a federal agency and an
institution partly supported by federal grants, and disrupt a
process contemplated by the regulations implementing Title IX.
While the Judge recognizes that the Defendants may still be in
violation of Title IX, he also notes that the Defendants are still
also subject to the loss of funding or federal court action that
the Resolution Agreement contemplates. He concludes that
injunctive relief should not be awarded while that possibility
remains. In the end, he finds that the Plaintiffs effectively
attempt to monitor, implement, and alter the Resolution Agreement
by seeking injunctive relief. That is an equitable power that the
Judge concludes is unavailable, and one that he would in his
discretion decline to exercise were such power extant.
The Judge therefore grants the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment with respect to the Plaintiffs' request for injunctive
relief pursuant to Title IX. He recognizes that such a conclusion
is hardly satisfying to the women's tennis players who were the
original Plaintiffs in the suit or to the young women who now seek
an opportunity to row on an intercollegiate level. He concludes,
however, that the law requires such an outcome. The Judge offers
no opinion about whether future plaintiffs could prevail on a Title
IX claim raised at some later date.
As he has determined that Defendants are entitled to summary
judgment on the Plaintiffs' Title IX claim, the Judge denies the
Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, which seeks summary judgment
on that same claim. Because no Title IX claim remains, he also
denies the motion to certify a class action on Count I of the
Second Amendment Complaint. Since he has dismissed that Count on a
basis independent of the identity of the named Plaintiffs, the
Judge denies the motion for class certification.
B. Plaintiff Graham's Claims
The remainder of the Second Amended Complaint contains claims of
employment discrimination brought by Plaintiff Gordon Graham. The
Defendants seeks summary judgment on those claims as well.
i. Title IX
The Defendants seek judgment on Graham's Title IX claim on several
bases. They argue that no such claim for employment discrimination
by an individual employee is available under Title IX. They
contend that the law has changed since July 2018, when the Court
determined that such a claim could be brought under the statute.
In any case, the Defendants claim, no evidence exists to support
such a claim. None of the evidence in the case indicates that the
University's cancellation of the women's tennis program came as a
result of Graham's gender.
Judge McAvoy holds that the Plaintiffs do not argue that the aim of
redirecting such resources was to shift them from men to women, or
to shift them away from the women's team because of their sex. The
result of that decision decreased opportunities for women, but the
effect is not the same as intent. Moreover, the Plaintiffs have
not pointed to any evidence that Graham's gender was in any way the
target of the decision to eliminate the women's tennis team. The
Judge must find that Plaintiff Graham has failed to make out a
primary case in this respect.
Because Graham has not made out a prima facie case, the Judge need
not address whether he has produced evidence to dispute the
Defendants' claim that they had legitimate non-discriminatory
reasons for eliminating the women's tennis team. He grants the
Defendants' motion with respect to this count.
ii. Equal Protection
The Defendants argue that the Court must dismiss the Plaintiffs'
equal protection claim, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983,
which alleges that the Defendants discriminated against him because
of his age. They repeat an argument that the Plaintiff must use
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 621, et
seq., to address this alleged discrimination. The Defendants also
offer several reasons why the Plaintiffs cannot maintain a Section
1983 claim of age discrimination.
Judge McAvoy concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to produce
any evidence a reasonable juror could use to determine that the
Defendants treated a similarly situated person differently from
Graham, and the Judge must grant summary judgment on this claim as
well, even without considering whether such treatment was based on
impermissible considerations.
Conclusion
For the reasons he stated, Judge McAvoy granted the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment. He denied both the Plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment and their motion for class certification. The
Clerk of Court if directed to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 6, 2021 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/hwsb7h44 from Leagle.com.
TIVITY HEALTH: October 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
ERIC WEINER, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIVITY HEALTH, INC., DONATO
TRAMUTO, GLENN HARGREAVES and
ADAM HOLLAND,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:17-cv-01469
Chief Judge Crenshaw
Magistrate Judge Newbern
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION; (II)
SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS'
FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE
ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF TIVITY HEALTH, INC. ("TIVITY") BETWEEN
MARCH 6, 2017 AND NOVEMBER 6, 2017, INCLUSIVE, AND WERE DAMAGED
THEREBY (THE "CLASS").
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS
WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
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 Middle District of Tennessee, that a hearing will be held
on October 4, 2021, at 4:00 p.m. , before Honorable Waverly D.
Crenshaw Jr, at the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, Estes Kefauver Federal Building &
Courthouse, 801 Broadway, Nashville, TN 37203, to determine: (1)
whether the settlement of the Class's claims against Defendants for
$7,500,000, should be approved as fair, just, reasonable, and
adequate; (2) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair,
just, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of
Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should
be approved; (4) whether the Class Representative should be granted
reimbursement for their expenses; and (5) whether the Class Action
should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation
filed with the Court.
If you purchased or acquired Tivity Health, Inc. common stock
between March 6, 2017 and November 6, 2017, both dates inclusive,
your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this Action and
you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have
not received a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class
Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Final Approval
of Hearing, you may obtain copies by contacting the Claims
Administrator in writing or email at: Tivity Securities Litigation,
c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., PO Box 3679,
Portland, OR 97208-3679; Telephone: 877-202-7202; email:
info@tivitysecuritieslitigation.com. Copies of the Notice and Claim
Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the
Claims Administrator, www.TivitySecuritiesLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
potentially eligible to receive a payment under the proposed
Settlement, you must complete and sign a Proof of Claim Form
establishing that you are entitled to recovery, and either mail it
by first-class mail to Tivity Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq Class
Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., PO Box 3679, Portland, OR
97208-3679, or submit it online at
www.TivitySecuritiesLitigation.com, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice and the Proof of Claim and
Release Form. The Proof of Claim Form must be postmarked or
received on or before September 27, 2021. As further described in
the Notice, you will be bound by any judgment entered in the
Action, regardless of whether you submit a Proof of Claim, unless
you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class. If you wish to
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a
request for exclusion such that it is received no later than
September 20, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set forth
in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement
Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by
the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in
the proceeds of the Settlement.
Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, reimbursement
of expenses to Class Representative, or attorney's fees and
expenses must be filed and served, in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the Notice, no later than September 20,
2021.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Class
Counsel: Daniel S. Sommers or Christina D. Saler by emailing
tivityclasscounsel@cohenmilstein.com or calling (202) 408-4600.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Tivity, or
Defendants' counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to Class Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.
Dated: July 12, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE [GN]
TRANSUNION: Obtains Favorable Supreme Court Ruling in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Jacobsen, writing for Albuquerque Journal, reports that in
March 2005, Colorado resident Sandra Cortez was in the market for a
new car.
She intended to finance the purchase with a loan, and requested a
copy of her credit report from TransUnion, one of the big three
credit reporting agencies.
The report assured her that her credit score was excellent. It
raised no red flags. She went to the John Elway Subaru dealership,
selected the car she wanted, negotiated a price and applied for the
loan.
Here's the key thing to know about Sandra Cortez. She was born in
May 1944 in Chicago. That's important, for reasons that will soon
become clear.
Her salesman ducked into the back to run a credit check. When he
came back, he "started asking her questions including whether she
had ‘always lived in the United States, if she had ever lived
outside of the country' and other ‘really strange questions,'"
according to a subsequent 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals opinion. The
FBI was mentioned.
It turns out that TransUnion offered its customers an optional
add-on to the usual credit report. For an extra fee, TransUnion
would flag consumers whose names were similar to those on a watch
list compiled by the Treasury Department.
The people on the watch list are terrorists, international drug
dealers, or sanctioned officials of foreign governments. It's
illegal to do business with them. One person on the list was Sandra
Cortes Quintero, a citizen of Colombia born in June 1971.
TransUnion had flagged the 60-year-old native Chicagoan as the
33-year-old Colombian.
Credit reporting agencies wield enormous power over the lives of
ordinary Americans. Credit reports are routinely checked not just
by lenders but by landlords, insurers and employers.
In recognition of the agencies' vast power, Congress imposes on
them a duty to "follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum
possible accuracy" in their credit reports. Obviously, TransUnion
didn't do that with regard to Sandra Cortez.
The law also required TransUnion to provide Cortez with "all
information in (her) file." It didn't do that, either, concealing
the red flag warning from her.
Federal law gives people wronged by the credit reporting agencies
the right to sue for money damages.
Cortez sued and won big. But, according to Supreme Court Justice
Clarence Thomas in a recent dissenting opinion, the company "made
surprisingly few changes after this verdict. It did not begin
comparing birth dates. Or middle initials. Or citizenship."
Inevitably, it was sued again, this time in a class action by 8,185
additional people it had wrongfully red-flagged. Again the
plaintiffs won big, because it was a slam dunk case.
But this time, TransUnion took its case to the Supreme Court. In a
recent 5-4 opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court
ruled largely in TransUnion's favor, greatly reducing the judgment
against it.
The court recognized that TransUnion violated federal law in
multiple ways. It also recognized that federal law permitted
wronged consumers to sue for damages.
But, the court said, the Constitution allowed only some of them to
do so.
About a quarter of the wrongfully labeled people had been directly
harmed when TransUnion sent inaccurate credit reports to their
lenders, employers, insurers or landlords. Those people, the court
said, would be allowed to collect from TransUnion.
But with respect to the rest, TransUnion hadn't actually
transmitted its inaccurate credit reports to anyone during one
particular seven-month period. Sure, you might say, but the bad
information was a ticking time bomb, primed to explode as soon as
the affected people did any one of various ordinary things we all
do at different times in our lives.
The court rejected that argument, concluding -- and I swear I'm not
making this up -- that it was impermissibly "speculative" to
imagine that a company in the business of selling credit reports
might sell credit reports. No harm, no foul, the court reasoned (in
almost those words).
The Constitution itself is unambiguous. The judicial power of the
United States "shall extend to all cases . . . arising under . . .
the Laws of the United States."
Kavanaugh struck out the word "all" and replaced it with "some."
He then amended the Constitution with his own mushy three-part test
under which Americans are prohibited from seeking money damages in
federal court for violations of federal law unless they allege harm
that is "concrete" and also bears a "close relationship" to harms
"traditionally" redressed at common law.
Shortly after Justice Antonin Scalia died, the conservative former
judge Michael W. McConnell wrote in the Wall Street Journal that
"when Justice Scalia arrived at the Supreme Court in 1986, its
jurisprudence had become sloppy, results-driven, plagued with fuzzy
three-part tests . . . with little basis in constitutional text."
Everything old is new again. [GN]
TUDOR RANCH: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Riverside employment law attorneys, at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against Tudor
Ranch, Inc., alleging the company violated the California Labor
Code. The lawsuit against Tudor Ranch, Inc. is currently pending in
the Riverside County Superior Court, Case No. CVRI2102436. To read
a copy of the Complaint, please click here.
According to the lawsuit filed, Tudor Ranch, Inc. allegedly (a)
failed to pay minimum wages, (b) failed to pay overtime wages, (c)
failed to provide legally required meal and rest periods, (d)
failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, (e) failed to
reimburse employees for required expenses, and (f) failed to
provide wages when due, all in violation of the applicable Labor
Code sections listed in Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203,
226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable
Wage Order(s), and thereby gives rise to civil penalties as a
result of such alleged conduct.
The complaint further alleges Tudor Ranch, Inc. committed acts of
unfair competition in violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 17200, et seq. (the
"UCL"), by engaging in a company-wide policy and procedure which
allegedly failed to accurately calculate and record the correct
overtime rate for the overtime worked by PLAINTIFF and other
CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. As a result of DEFENDANT's alleged
intentional disregard of the obligation to meet this burden,
DEFENDANT allegedly failed to properly calculate and/or pay all
required compensation for work performed by the members of the
CALIFORNIA CLASS and allegedly violated the California Labor Code.
For more information about the class action lawsuit against Tudor
Ranch, Inc., call (800) 568-8020 to speak to an experienced
California employment attorney today.
Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is a labor law firm with
law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los
Angeles County, Sacramento County, Santa Clara County, Orange
County and San Francisco County. The firm has a statewide practice
of representing employees on a contingency basis for violations
involving unpaid wages, overtime pay, discrimination, harassment,
wrongful termination and other types of illegal workplace conduct.
***THIS IS AN ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT*** [GN]
UNITED PARCEL: Rizvanovic Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Parcel
Service. The case is styled as Michelle Rizvanovic, on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. United Parcel Service, an Ohio
Corporation, Case No. BCV-21-101599 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty.,
July 14, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
United Parcel Service -- https://www.ups.com/us/en/global.page --
is an American multinational shipping & receiving and supply chain
management company founded in 1907.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sang J. Park, Esq.
PARK APC
500 S Grand Ave., Ste. 2050
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2641
Phone: 310-627-2964
Fax: 310-362-8279
Email: sang@park-lawyers.com
VELODYNE LIDAR: Court Consolidates Three Securities Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MEYSAM MORADPOUR, Plaintiff v. VELODYNE LIDAR, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01486-SI (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California:
(i) grants the seven motions to consolidate cases:
21-cv-01486-SI, 21-cv-01736-VC, and 21-cv-01950-JST; and
(ii) grants Diane and William Smith's motion to appoint lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.
The present matter, 21-cv-1486-SI, arose in connection with
statements allegedly issued by Defendants Velodyne, Anand Gopalan,
and Andrew Hamer regarding Velodyne's business operations and
financial prospects. Velodyne develops lidar sensor technologies
for automated systems and in 2020 became a public entity when it
merged with Graf Industrial Corp., a special purpose acquisition
company.
On March 2, 2021, in 21-cv-1486-SI, Plaintiff Moradpour filed a
securities class action complaint against the Defendants for
alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. The Plaintiff alleges
defendants made false or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts to investors during the class
period, Nov. 9, 2020 and Feb. 19, 2021.
On March 12, 2021, in 3:21-cv-01736-VC, Robert Reese filed a
securities class action complaint the Defendants for violations of
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Reese Action complaint alleges
throughout the class period, Nov. 9, 2020 to Feb. 19, 2021, the
Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts to investors.
On March 19, 2021, Carol E. Nick, in 4:21-cv-01950-JST, filed a
securities class action complaint against Velodyne, Gopalan, Hamer,
James A. Graf, Michael Dee, OC Opportunities Fund II, L.P., Owl
Creek Asset Management, L.P., and Graf Acquisition LLC for
violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Nick Action complaint
alleges throughout the class period, July 2, 2020 to March 17,
2021, the Defendants allegedly made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose adverse facts to investors.
Now before the Court are seven unopposed motions requesting
consolidation of the Moradpour Action, Reese Action, and Nick
Action and seven separate motions for appointment as lead plaintiff
and lead counsel. All lead plaintiffs movants, except Diane and
William Smith, filed non-oppositions to the competing motions for
appointment as lead plaintiff.
Discussion
I. Consolidation
Seven movants, Krista Buccholz & John Whitney, Evy Gru, David
Handley, Diane Smith & William P. Smith, Velodyne Investor Group,
Brandon Welu, and Scott Wentz, filed motions to consolidate the
present action with 21-cv-01736-VC and 21-cv-01950-JST. During
oral argument, the Defendants represented that they do not oppose
consolidation.
Judge Illston finds that consolidation appropriate. The motions to
consolidate are unopposed. Moreover, the Moradpour, Reese, and
Nick actions involve the same substantive public statements and SEC
filings allegedly made by the Defendants. All three actions arise
from the same factual scenario -- namely, whether Velodyne
securities were artificially inflated during the class period as a
result of the Defendant's alleged conduct and public statements.
Accordingly, the Judge grants the motions to consolidate and
consolidates cases 21-CV-01486-SI, 21-CV-01736-VC, and
21-CV-01950-JST.
II. Lead Plaintiff
Seven movants, Krista Buccholz & John Whitney, Evy Gru, David
Handley, Diane Smith & William P. Smith, Velodyne Investor Group,
Brandon Welu, and Scott Wentz, originally filed motions for
appointment as lead plaintiff. However, movants Krista Buccholz &
John Whitney, Evy Gru, David Handley, Velodyne Investor Group,
Brandon Welu, and Scott Wentz do not oppose appointment of Diane
and William Smith as lead plaintiff. During oral argument, the
Defendants represented that they do not oppose appointment of Diane
and William Smith as lead plaintiffs.
Judge Illston appoints Diane and William Smith as the Lead
Plaintiffs. Plaintiff Moradpour properly filed a notice of
publication of SEC class action. Diane and William Smith purchased
the most shares during the class period, hold the most net shares
and net funds expended during the class period, and suffered the
most financial lost. Finally, the cause of Diane and William
Smith's financial loss is similar to the cause of financial loss
for other plaintiffs in the class period—decrease in Velodyne
stock values.
Accordingly, the Judge grants Diane and William Smith's motion to
appoint as lead counsel and appoints Diane and William Smith as the
Lead Plaintiffs.
III. Lead Counsel
Generally, once a lead plaintiff is selected, that plaintiff
"shall, subject to the approval of the court, select and retain
counsel to represent the class." A court generally should accept
the lead plaintiff's choice of counsel unless it appears necessary
to appoint different counsel to "protect the interests of the
class."
In the case, Diane and William Smith selected Kahn Swick & Foti,
LLP to represent them. During oral argument, Kahn Swick & Foti,
LLP represented that its firm has adequate experience in securities
actions and has the resources and financial ability to be lead
counsel. Accordingly, Judge Illston approves the lead counsel
selection of Diane and William Smith and grants the Smiths' motion
for appointment of lead counsel.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Illston grants the motions to
consolidate. These cases will be consolidated under the lowest
case number, 21-cv-1486.
The Judge grants the Smiths' motion to appoint lead plaintiff and
lead counsel and denies the remaining motions for appointment as
lead plaintiff and lead counsel. She appoints the Smiths to serve
as the Lead Plaintiffs. She appoints Kahn Swick & Foti, LLP to
serve as the Lead Counsel.
The Lead Counsel will file an amended consolidated complaint by
Sept. 1, 2021.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3e8dzh4e from Leagle.com.
VIVID SEATS: Class Claims in Brouillette Dismissed W/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BRUCE BROUILLETTE, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIVID SEATS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-02133-JLS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), Judge
Josephine L. Staton of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Southern Division:
(i) dismissed without prejudice and without notice the class
allegations; and
(ii) dismissed with prejudice the individual claims in the
case.
Having considered the Parties' joint stipulation pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and for good cause appearing, Judge
Staton ordered that (i) all putative class action allegations and
claims in the action are dismissed without prejudice and (ii) all
individual allegations and claims on behalf of Plaintiff
Brouillette against the Defendant are dismissed with prejudice and
without any findings of liability, wrongdoing, admissions, fault or
damages of any kind.
No Party thereto will be entitled to costs or attorneys' fees
because of the Order of Dismissal.
Based on the factors identified in Diaz v. Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands, 876 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1989), the dismissal of
the class allegations may be made, and is made, without notice to
the putative class.
The action is dismissed on the terms outlined.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4wxpnk8r from Leagle.com.
[*] Defendants in Lemon Creek Fuel Spill Class Suit Appeal Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Boivin, writing for The Nelson Daily, reports that it's one
step forward, one step back for people involved in a class action
lawsuit over a spill of jet fuel in the Slocan River in 2013.
Defendants in the case have appealed Judge D.M. Masuhara's May 21st
ruling that the lawsuit could go ahead. He handed down his decision
after changing some of the specifics of the lawsuit, to reflect
orders received from an appeal of his first ruling on the case.
The lawsuit stems from the July 2013 spill of 35,000 litres of jet
fuel into Lemon Creek by a transport driver making a delivery to a
firefighting operation. The spill forced thousands of people up to
40 kilometres downstream in the Slocan Valley to evacuate the
area.
The spill also killed fish and forced residents to get alternate
sources of drinking water for themselves and livestock for days.
Residents who were affected by the spill launched the suit for
damages.
It's the second time the case will go to the Appeal Court of BC,
even before it goes to trial.
Masuhara, the chambers judge reviewing the certification, ruled in
2017 the class action could go ahead -- the first time such a class
action environmental lawsuit had been approved in British Columbia.
But the defendants -- the helicopter company, fuel-delivery
company, the truck driver, and provincial government -- appealed
that ruling.
The BC Court of Appeal found issue with some of the particulars of
the issues to be decided (called the "common issues"), and sent the
matter back to Masuhara for a re-determination according to the
higher court's reasons.
After implementing the changes outlined by the Court of Appeal,
Masuhara re-certified the lawsuit as a class action.
The proponents filed an appeal to that, but without any details, on
June 21. There's also no date set yet for the appellant court to
hear the case.
"We have already been to the Court of Appeal in order to advance
the determination of this action and we will do it again if that is
what is required to achieve justice for those impacted by the Lemon
Creek fuel spill," said David Aaron, one of the lawyers
representing the plaintiffs in the suit. [GN]
[*] PRO Act Prohibits Class-Action Waivers in Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Nagele-Piazza, writing for SHRM, reports that President Joe
Biden has asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to ban or limit
employment-related noncompete agreements as part of an executive
order he signed on July 9.
The order includes 72 initiatives across many federal agencies and
aims to "promote competition in the American economy, which will
lower prices for families, increase wages for workers, and promote
innovation and even faster economic growth," according to a fact
sheet released by the White House.
Employers generally use noncompetes to discourage employees from
taking valuable trade-secret information to competitors, but
lawmakers have sought to ban noncompetes with hourly workers in the
retail and restaurant industries. Limiting employer use of
noncompetes will make it easier for workers to change jobs and help
raise wages, the White House said. The order also aims to limit
occupational licensing requirements that may make it harder for
workers to find employment when they move to a different state.
Michael Wexler, an attorney with Seyfarth in Chicago, noted that
policies targeting noncompete restrictions on hourly and lower-wage
workers have been sweeping across the country in recent years.
"However, businesses and most states—even the most
employee-friendly states—still recognize the need for restrictive
covenants supporting the investment of time and resources by
businesses to develop trade secrets and customer relationships
which are vital to maintaining innovation, developing new products
and actually protecting existing employees."
We've gathered articles on the news from SHRM Online and other
trusted media outlets.
Removing Barriers to Competition
The White House said barriers to competition drive down wages.
"When there are only a few employers in town, workers have less
opportunity to bargain for a higher wage and to demand dignity and
respect in the workplace." Among other directives, the order
encourages the FTC to ban or limit noncompete agreements, ban
unnecessary occupational licensing restrictions and, along with the
Department of Justice, strengthen antitrust guidance. No
regulations have been issued yet.
(The White House)
States Typically Regulate Noncompetes
Noncompetition agreements and other employment contracts
traditionally have been regulated through state law. California,
North Dakota and Oklahoma have banned noncompete agreements in most
circumstances, and nearly a dozen other states prohibit such
agreements with low-wage earners. A broad federal rule would likely
be challenged by businesses.
(NPR)
Protecting Confidential Information
Somewhere between one-quarter and nearly one-half of private-sector
workers are subject to some kind of noncompete agreement, according
to a study from the Economic Policy Institute. Proponents of
eliminating the clauses argue that noncompete agreements—which
bar workers from accepting new employment in their field or
industry for a certain period, often a year or more after they
leave an employer—reduce competition among businesses and stifle
workers' job mobility and wage growth. The clauses were first
introduced to prevent upper-level employees from taking trade
secrets to rival businesses but have since proliferated to low-wage
and low-skill workers.
Many businesses have legitimate reasons for requiring workers to
sign the agreements, and individualized assessments of the
agreements that consider the industry and the geographical location
should be conducted instead of an outright ban, said Beth Milito,
senior legal counsel at the National Federation of Independent
Business.
"Should noncompetes be limited … employers would have to consider
new ways to protect their customer relationships, financial
investments, business goodwill and confidential information," said
Ana Dowell, an attorney in the Atlanta office of Ackerman.
(SHRM Online)
President Supports PRO Act
The White House noted that the executive order aligns with Biden's
call for Congress to pass the Protecting the Right to Organize
(PRO) Act, which the U.S. House of Representatives approved in
March. If enacted into law, the bill would be the most expansive
labor relations legislation since the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA) of 1935.
The legislation would, among other provisions:
Weaken right-to-work laws in 28 states by permitting unions to
require workers at unionized companies to pay dues. Currently,
employees in right-to-work states may choose not to pay union
dues.
Greatly expand the definition of "employee" and almost expunge the
concept of independent contractor.
Make it easier to establish that two or more employers are joint
employers.
Prohibit class-action waivers in arbitration.
Expand damages under the NLRA.
The House also passed the PRO Act last year, but no action was
taken in the Senate. [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 ***