/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210730.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, July 30, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 146
Headlines
21ST MORTGAGE: Antill Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia
360 DIGITECH: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 13 Deadline
360 DIGITECH: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 13 Deadline
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Reeves Claims
3M COMPANY: Shockey Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
ACCELLION INC: Faces Faridian Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
ALDI INC: Thompson Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
ALL FOR YOU: Abante Rooter Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
AMAZON.COM INC: Changes Conditions of Use to Avert Class Lawsuits
AMAZON.COM INC: Underpays Warehouse Workers, Green Suit Claims
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Nov. 1
AMERICAN HONDA: Bid to Toss Browning Liability Suit Partly Granted
AMERIFACTORS FINANCIAL: Bid to Certify Class in Career Suit Denied
AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG: Settlement Reached in Opioid Class Action
ARGO TEA: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AT&T MOBILITY: Jarrat Consumer Suit Removed to E.D. California
BACKLINKO LLC: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Guerrero Suit Over Improper Banking Fees
BATH & BODY: Faces Perez Suit Over Mislabeled Skin Care Products
BATTERIES PLUS: Faces Class Action Under New Telemarketing Rules
BEECAN HEALTH: Labor Class Action Pending in Los Angeles Court
BLAZING BULL: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLUECITY HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of Sept. 17 Deadline
BRUNEL RESOURCES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wags, Trujillo Suit Claims
CARL NELSON: Abante Rooter Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads
CARLOTZ INC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of September 7 Deadline
CARLOTZ INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 7 Deadline
CERRO WIRE: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Church Suit Claims
CG CONSULTING: Ousley Directed to File Third Amended Complaint
CHOBANI LLC: Faces Austin Suit Over Mislabeled Yogurt Products
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
CLIENT SERVICES: Genzone Suit Moved From Supreme Ct. to E.D.N.Y.
COINBASE GLOBAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline
COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Ramsey Suit Over 10% Drop of Share Price
COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Securities Class Action in California
COLLOV INC: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COLONIAL PIPELINE: Faces Class Action Over Ransomware Attack
CONOPCO INC: Goulart MMPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: Hofstatter Balks at Unfair Collection Letter
CORMEDIX INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline
CRAILTAP LLC: Davis Sues Over Website Inaccessibility to Blind
CREDENCE RESOURCE: Toney Suit Removed from Supreme Ct. to E.D.N.Y.
CREDIT SUISSE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Antitrust Class Suit
CRESCO CAPITAL: Dahir Suit Removed to D. Minnesota
CVS PHARMACY: $9.75MM Class Settlement in Chalian Suit Has Final OK
DALLAS, TX: Lawsuit Over County Jail COVID Conditions Pending
DAPPER LABS: Faces Class Action Over Non-Fungible Token
DELIVER MY MEDS: Simai Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
DELTA AIR: Gurzenski Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
DIDI GLOBAL: Faces Chopra Suit Over 16% Drop in Share Price
DIDI GLOBAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of September 7 Deadline
DIRECT RECOVERY: Andrews Sues Over Unsolicited Messages and Calls
DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Removes Turizo TCPA Suit to S.D. Florida
EGO INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages & OT, Jimenez Suit Claims
ENERGY FIRST: Field Labor Suit Moved From W.D. to S.D. Texas
EPICENTRO CAFE: Faces Tirado Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Florida
EQT CORP: Seeks Dismissal of $40MM Gas Royalty Owners' Suit
ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 23
FACEBOOK INC: Keller Lenkner Firm Disqualified in Antitrust Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Trump's Class Action Over Censorship Pending
FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Class Action Over BIPA Violation
FCA US: Faces Class Action Over Chrysler Sliding Door Problems
FOOD LION: Botterill Sues Over Misleading Coffee Product Labels
GEICO CASUALTY: Deadline for Class Cert. Filing Set for August 13
GENERAL DYNAMICS: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 13
GENERAL MOTORS: 5.3L Vortec V8 Class Action Can Proceed
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Vortec Engines
GG33 CORP: Faces Lopez Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Macormic Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Rieske Sues Over Unpaid OT for Adjusters
GUELPH DENTAL: Dental Care Negligence Class Action Certified
HOME DEPOT: Seeks Denial of Carlson Bid for Class Certification
HOME MEDICAL: Faces Garcia Class Suit Over Data Breach in D.N.M.
HYDRANT INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
HYUNDAI MOTOR: O'Riordan Sues Over Vehicles' Defective Wheels
IKO MANUFACTURING: Kult Suit Removed from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Missouri
INVESTOPEDIA LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to Deaf, Winegard Says
JAMES RIVER: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 7 Deadline
JK ENTERPRISE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Begley Suit Claims
JORDAN PAIGE: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Nisbett Says
KANZHUN LIMITED: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Sept. 10 Deadline
KING UMBERTO: Martinez Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
KONINKELIJKE PHILIPS: Davis Sues Over Health Risks of CPAP Devices
KONINKELIJKE PHILIPS: Faces Hufnus Suit Over Defective Ventilators
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Devices Contain PE-PUR Foam, Algofi Suit Says
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Provisions Don't Cover Device Recall Costs
KRATOS LOGISTICS: Refuses to Pay Training Hours, Class Suit Says
LEAFFILTER NORTH: Kunkel Seeks Technicians' OT Pay Under FLSA, AMWA
LIDDLE AND LIDDLE: Court Initially OKs Class Settlement in Perchlak
LIFEAID BEVERAGE: Kinzer Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads
LIFESTYLE LEGAL: Judge Certifies Consumer Law Class Action
LINCARE INC: Balderson Cross Appeals Ruling to 4th Cir.
MAGNELL ASSOCIATE: Fu Sues Over Wrongful Termination, Retaliation
MARIELOS CORP: Galicia Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
MATTRESS & FURNITURE: Faces Jimenez-Martin Suit in Cal. State Ct.
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: OLEPTF Wins Class Certification Bid
MICHAEL FALCONE: Cohen Balks at Fundamental Advisors' Merger Deal
MLD MORTGAGE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Dye Suit Over Kickbacks
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over RV Dwellers
MOWI ASA: Tuna Price-Fixing Class Action Interferes With EU Probe
NATIONAL CLAIMS: Faces Bobbs Suit Over Employee Misclassification
NATIONAL CONSUMER: Trepeta Class Cert. Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
NCAA: Disregards Players' Health and Safety, Girard Suit Alleges
NCAA: Ferguson Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
NCAA: Mimms Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
NOBLE ENERGY: Natural Gas Royalties Class Action Deserves Remand
NYACK COLLEGE: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Stevez Alleges
OATLY GROUP: Scott+Scott Reminds of September 24 Deadline
OCUGEN INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
OCWEN LOAN: Franklin Class Status Bid Held in Abeyance
ONDAS HOLDINGS: Carlisle Sues Over Acquisition of American Robotics
OS RESTAURANT: Faces Hutton FLSA Suit Over Tip Credit, Underpayment
P&G CO: Helterbrand Suit Moved From Circuit Court to E.D. Missouri
PARENTS ASSOCIATION: Faces Diaz Suit Over Workers' Unpaid Wages
PARKMOBILE LLC: Demos Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct.
PENN FOSTER: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Stevez Alleges
PEOPLEASE LLC: Espinoza Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
PERRIGO CO: To Proceed Class Action After Denied Dismissal Bid
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES: Refuses Canceled Flight Refunds, Suit Claims
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 21 Deadline
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
PLANO SYNERGY: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Suit Alleges
PURDUE PHARMA: Pittsfield, North Adams Set to Get Sackler Payout
R&R EXPRESS: Rood Suit Wins Rule 23 Class Certification
RED BLUFF: Mitchell Sues Over Untimely Payments of Interest Owed
REGIONS BANK: Faces Aguilar Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RENOVACARE INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline
RENOVACARE INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline
RETAIL EQUATION: Hannum Files FCRA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
RITE AID: Faces Staff Class Action Over Uniform Purchase Policy
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Garcia Suit Removed to N.D. California
ROBLOX CORP: Fails to Issue Refunds for Deleted Content, Suit Says
SANCTUARY LOFTS: Berry Sues Over Lease Agreement in Ill. Cir. Ct.
SANDHILLS MEDICAL: Ford Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
SCRIPPS HEALTH: Lahrmann Sues Over Failure to Protect Private Info
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Faces Kant Suit Over Union Dues Deductions
SGE MANAGEMENT: Court Resolves Fee Dispute in Torres Class Suit
SILVERADO SENIOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bonwell Suit Alleges
SIMS GROUP: Sanft Must File Class Cert. Bid by August 20
SPARC GROUP: Lisner Suit Moved From Superior Court to C.D. Calif.
ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Suit Says
STABLE ROAD: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of September 13 Deadline
STOCKTON GOLF: Salcedo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SUN PACIFIC: Castanon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SURGICAL DISCOUNTERS: Faces Katz Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
SUTTER HEALTH: Judge Set to Approve Antitrust Case Settlement
T&T FARMS: Porter Balks at Misleading Business Opportunity Program
TRANSUNION: Baker Sterchi Attorney Discusses FCRA Suit Court Ruling
TROPICALE FOODS: Romero Sues Over Misleading Paletas Labels
TS TRANSPORTING: Faces Martinez Suit in California State Court
UNION PACIFIC: Partial Bid to Dismiss Carrillo Suit OK'd
UNITED AIRLINES: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Jimenez Alleges
UNITED CONCORDIA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Lyngaas Suit Claims
UNITED KINGDOM: Sued Over Irish Sea Trading Arrangements
VIAGOGO ENTERTAINMENT: Shiflett Bid for Class Certification Junked
VIRGINIA: Solitary Confinement Class Action v. DOC Pending
WENIG HOLDINGS: Floyd et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads
WEST HILLS: Porter Class Suit Seeks Penalties Under Labor Code PAGA
WESTFIELD INSURANCE: Graber Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
WWF OPERATING: Venegas Employment Suit Goes to C.D. California
[*] Judge Approves Glucosamine Sulfate Class Action in Canada
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Cites 3 Employers for Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Faces 810 Pending Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Has $59MM Insurance Receivable at June 30
*********
21ST MORTGAGE: Antill Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Wendell Todd Antill, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. 21st Mortgage Corporation, Case
No. 03-00021-26 was removed from the Boone County Circuit Court to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
on July 26, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00419 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005.
21st Mortgage -- https://www.21stmortgage.com/ -- specializes in
financing manufactured and mobile home loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Sheridan, Esq.
Megan Alicia Patrick, Esq.
KLEIN & SHERIDAN
3566 Teays Valley Road
Hurricane, WV 25526
Phone: (304) 562-7111
Fax: (304) 562-7115
Email: bsheridan@kswvlaw.com
mpatrick@kswvlaw.com
Jed Robert Nolan, Esq.
NOLAN CONSUMER LAW
P. O. Box 654
Athens, WV 24712
Phone: (304) 207-0066
Email: jed@protectwvconsumers.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Albert C. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
BAILEY & WYANT
P. O. Box 3710
Charleston, WV 25337-3710
Phone: (304) 345-4222
Fax: (304) 343-3133
Email: adunn@baileywyant.com
360 DIGITECH: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 13 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 26 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against 360 DigiTech, Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-06013, is
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other
than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired 360 DigiTech
securities between April 30, 2020 and July 7, 2021, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased 360 DigiTech securities
during the Class Period, you have until September 13, 2021 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com
or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
360 DigiTech, through its subsidiaries, operates a digital consumer
finance platform under the 360 Jietiao brand in the People's
Republic of China ("PRC"). Its platform provides online consumer
finance products to the borrowers funded by institutional funding
partners. The Company also provides incremental credit assessment,
collection, and other services, as well as guarantee for defaulted
loans. The Company was formerly known as 360 Finance, Inc. and
changed its name to 360 DigiTech, Inc. in September 2020.
The complaint alleges throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company had been collecting personal
information in violation of relevant PRC laws and regulations; (ii)
accordingly, 360 DigiTech was exposed to an increased risk of
regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement action; and (iii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On July 8, 2021, reports circulated on social media to the effect
that the Company's core product, the 360 IOU app, had been removed
from major app stores. The reports came on the heels of the removal
of other companies' apps as Chinese regulators investigated their
customer data protection practices.
On this news, 360 DigiTech's stock price fell $7.12 per share, or
21.48%, to close at $26.02 per share on July 8, 2021.
Then, on July 9, 2021, Seeking Alpha reported that 360 DigiTech
confirmed the removal of its 360 IOU app from the Android app store
and quoted a Company spokesperson, who disclosed that the Company
had "submitted a new rectification plan and stepped up the whole
process."
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980
URL: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com[GN]
360 DIGITECH: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 13 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of 360 DigiTech, Inc.
(NASDAQ: QFIN). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage.
Investors who purchased QFIN stock or other securities between
April 30, 2020 and July 7, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law Firm's
investor protection team by visiting
www.tenlaw.com/cases/360DigiTech for more information. Investors
may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/360DigiTech
The case alleges that 360 DigiTech and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (i)
360 DigiTech had been collecting personal information in violation
of relevant People's Republic of China laws and regulations; and
(ii) accordingly, 360 DigiTech was exposed to an increased risk of
regulatory scrutiny or enforcement action.
Interested 360 DigiTech investors have until September 13, 2021 to
retain counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are
interested to do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. Investors do
not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. If
investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class
member. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification
occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law
Firm is not currently representing a plaintiff who filed a
complaint but is investigating the case on behalf of investors
interested in being a lead plaintiff.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/360DigiTech
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.
CONTACT:
Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/360DigiTech [GN]
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Reeves Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JERMAIN REEVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC;
KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-02233-RMG (D.S.C., July 22, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective design,
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring trust,
and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and consumers, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, the suit says.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid disease/cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Shockey Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL SHOCKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC;
KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-02232-RMG (D.S.C., July 22, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective design,
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring trust,
and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and
California Unfair Competition Law.
The case arises from severe personal injury sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and military
members, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with thyroid disease, the suit asserts.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
ACCELLION INC: Faces Faridian Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN FARIDIAN and CAMERON WOODS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ACCELLION, INC.; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21CV384150 (Cal. Super.,
Santa Clara Cty., July 9, 2021) is an action alleging that the
Defendant failed to safeguard and protect the sensitive information
of the Plaintiffs and the Class Members.
According to the complaint, on December 24, 2020, U.C. DaVis'
Accellion File Transfer Appliance (FTA) file sharing service was
the target of a massive data breach in which hundreds of
individuals were subject to an unauthorized access and
exfiltration, theft, or disclosure of their PII ("Data Breach").
Outside parties accessed a trove of personal details about the
Defendant's Customers -- such as names, home and business
addresses, emails addresses, driver's license numbers, social
security numbers, and other information. The highly sensitive
personal identifiable information ("PII") was maintained and used
in a form that was neither encrypted nor redacted, says the suit.
Because of the alleged Data Breach, the Plaintiffs and the Class
suffered identity theft and continue to face an increased risk of
identity theft and concomitant expenses associated With mitigating
that risk. The Plaintiffs and Class Members require robust credit
monitoring services and software to reasonably mitigate the danger
of identity theft and fraud.
Accellion, Inc. provides secure collaboration and managed file
transfer solutions. The Company offers productivity, enterprise
content, file sharing and synchronization and storage, replacement,
and backups and recovery. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew Righetti, Esq.
RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
220 Halleck Street, Suite 220
San Francisco, CA 94129
Telephone: (415) 983-0900
Facsimile: (415) 397-9005
E-mail: matt@rightettilaw.com
ALDI INC: Thompson Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aldi Inc., et al. The
case is styled as Tyrone Thompson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Aldi Inc., a Illinois corporation;
Does 1 to 10 inclusive; Case No. 5:21-cv-01257-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal.,
July 27, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
ALDI Inc. -- https://www.aldi.us/ -- owns and operates grocery
stores. The Company offers grocery, meat, fresh produce, wine and
beer, beverages, and other home products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com
jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
ALL FOR YOU: Abante Rooter Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALL FOR YOU PRODUCTIONS
INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-05608-TSH (N.D. Cal., July 21, 2021) brings this class
action complaint against the Defendant seeking for damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies as a result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and
willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff an
unsolicited text message on its cellular telephone number ending in
-6147 on or about March 17, 2020 in an attempt to solicit the
Plaintiff to purchase its services. The Plaintiff claims that the
message sent by the Defendant was drafted in advance and sent out
automatically based on pre-programmed parameters via the
Defendant's SMS Blasting Platform, which is an "automatic telephone
dialing system" (ATDS). Additionally, the Plaintiff was never a
customer of the Defendant, and never provided its cellular
telephone number to the Defendant for any reason whatsoever nor his
"prior express consent" to receive such unsolicited text messages,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were harmed
by the Defendant's unsolicited text messages causing them to incur
certain charges or reduced telephone time for which they had
previously paid, and by invading their privacy.
All For You Productions Inc. provides loans for businesses. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Changes Conditions of Use to Avert Class Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ina Steiner, writing for EcommerceBytes.com, reports that many
large companies now force customers to agree to binding arbitration
in cases of disputes, preventing users from suing them in court --
Amazon among them.
But in a surprise move, Amazon changed its Conditions of Use,
sending the following letter to customers:
Dear (Redacted),
We wanted to let you know that we recently updated our Conditions
of Use.
One of our updates involves how disputes are resolved between you
and Amazon. Previously, our Conditions of Use set out an
arbitration process for those disputes. Our updated Conditions of
Use provides for dispute resolution by the courts.
Please visit https://www.amazon.com/conditionsofuse to read our
updated terms in full.
As always, your use of any Amazon service constitutes your
agreement to our Conditions of Use.
Thank you,
Amazon
Binding arbitration clauses require each customer to file a dispute
individually -- and there is a perception arbitration often favors
companies over their users.
While class action lawsuits potentially have more teeth, the legal
cases we had written about in years past often led to settlements,
with most customers receiving a paltry check.
We did notice that while Amazon now allows lawsuits, there's a bit
of a gotcha:
"Any dispute or claim relating in any way to your use of any Amazon
Service will be adjudicated in the state or Federal courts in King
County, Washington, and you consent to exclusive jurisdiction and
venue in these courts. We each waive any right to a jury trial."
Amazon customers may now get their day in court, but not before a
jury.
The New York Times covered the news and spoke to Deepak Gupta, a
lawyer who represented customers in a landmark 2010 Supreme Court
case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.
Referring to binding arbitration clauses, Gupta said, "It was never
about making it easier for customers to resolve disputes -- it was
about killing claims."
eBay continues to have an arbitration clause in its User Agreement
-- as does Etsy.
If you have ever participated in a lawsuit or arbitration as a
buyer or seller, chime in -- and let us know what you think of
binding arbitration clauses. [GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Underpays Warehouse Workers, Green Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
SIWANA GREEN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 210701753
(Philadelphia Courts of Common Pleas, July 21, 2021) is a class
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Warehouse Worker
from approximately August 2019 until approximately February 2020.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant of failing to compensate her
and other similarly situated warehouse workers for all the time
they spent performing duties for the Defendant. Specifically, the
Defendant refused to pay its warehouse workers any compensation for
the time associated with the mandatory security screenings both at
the beginning of their unpaid meal breaks and at the end of their
shifts, that includes the time spent waiting in security lines and
going through the security screening process. Despite regularly
working more than 40 hours per week, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated warehouse workers were not paid their lawfully
earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half-times
their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek, added the Plaintiff
The Plaintiff brings this complaint for herself and all other
similarly situated warehouse workers seeking to recover unpaid
wages to the fullest extent permitted under the law, as well as
pre-judgment interest, litigation costs, expenses, and attorney's
fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Amazon.com, Inc. operates fulfillment centers (a.k.a. warehouses)
throughout Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
Michelle L. Tolodziecki, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Tel: (215) 884-2491
- and –
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Tel: (267) 256-9973
- and –
David Garrison, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON LLC
414 Union St., Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Nov. 1
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EVA SOLIS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN
AIRLINES, INC., and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
2:19-cv-10181-PSG-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Philip S.
Gutierrez entered an order granting the stipulation to continue
class certification deadlines, trial date, and other dates and
deadlines:
Event/Filing Deadline Current Requested
Date Date
-- Class Certification Motion None Set Nov. 1, 2021
-- Class Certification None Set Nov. 29, 2021
Opposition
-- Class Certification Reply None Set Dec. 13, 2021
-- Discovery Cut-Off None Set Jan. 14, 2022
-- Dispositive Motion Aug. 10, 2021 Feb. 11, 2022
Filing Cut-Off
-- Opening Expert Witness None Set Feb. 25, 2022
Disclosure
-- Rebuttal Expert Witness None Set March 11, 2022
Disclosure
-- Expert Discovery Cut-Off None Set April 1, 2022
-- Final Pretrial Oct. 18, 2021 April 22 2022
Conference
-- Jury Trial May 1, 2022 Nov. 1, 202
American Airlines is a major American airline headquartered in Fort
Worth, Texas, within the Dallas -- Fort Worth metroplex. It is the
world's largest airline when measured by fleet size, scheduled
passengers carried, and revenue passenger mile.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/371aPLg at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan Harris, Esq.
Priya Mohan, Esq.
HARRIS &RUBLE
655 North Central Ave.
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: 323) 962-3777
Facsimile: (.23) 962-3004
E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
pmohan@ harrisandrubble.com
- and -
John P. Dorigan, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN P. DORIGAN
600 Canterbury Lane
Segamore Hills, OH 44067
Telephone: (330) 748-4475
Facsimile: (303) 748-4475
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael G. McGuinness, Esq.
O'MELVEN & MYERS LLP
400 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
Telephone: (213) 430-6000
Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
E-mail: mmcguinness omm.com
- and -
Kelly wood, Esq.
Alla w. Gustin, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660-6429
Telephone: (949) 760-9600
Facsimile: (949) 823-6994
E-mail: kwood@omm.com
austin@omm.com
AMERICAN HONDA: Bid to Toss Browning Liability Suit Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RONDA ANN BROWNING, et al., Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN
HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-05417-BLF
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted
in part Defendant American Honda Motor's motion to dismiss.
The putative class action alleges a defect in 2018-2019 Honda
Odysseys equipped with a 9-speed automatic transmission ("ZF 9HP
Automatic Transmission." Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege the
Transmission contains a defect causing "rough, delayed, or sudden
shifting or failure to shift; grinding or other loud noises during
shifting; harsh engagement of gears; sudden or harsh
accelerations/decelerations; and sudden loss of power" in the
2018-2019 Honda Odysseys.
While the Plaintiffs expect an automatic transmission to "start,
accelerate, decelerate, and stop immediately in response to the
driver's input," they claim that the Class Vehicles "operate
erratically, causing numerous safety concerns." In 2014, American
Honda Motor ("AHM") began equipping select vehicle models with a
9-speed "automatic" transmission designed to increase fuel economy.
The Plaintiffs allege that the improved fuel economy came at a
"significant and undisclosed cost: rough and delayed shifting, loud
noises during shifting, harsh engagement of gears, sudden, harsh
accelerations and decelerations, and sudden loss of power." The
Plaintiffs did not receive any permanent repairs when bringing
their Class Vehicles to the AHM authorized dealerships.
Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs filed suit against AHM, a
California corporation and Defendant Honda Motor Company LTD, a
Japanese Corporation. They bring 18 causes of action against the
Defendants including the following: violation of consumer
protection laws of Florida, Ohio, Michigan, South Carolina, Texas,
and California; breach of implied warranty under Florida, Ohio,
Michigan, South Carolina, Texas, and California law; breach of
express warranty under Michigan, South Carolina, Texas, and
California law; a violation of California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"); and unjust enrichment. Each claim is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff residing in the respective state.
The claims are also brought on behalf of a proposed nationwide
class of individuals that purchased or leased a Class Vehicle, or,
in the alternative, a class comprised of the same said individuals
residing in the states of the respective state law claims. The
only exception is the Plaintiffs' fourteenth cause of action for
violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, which is
brought on behalf of Mr. Pina and the CLRA Subclass comprised of
individuals defined as consumers within the CLRA.
Discussion
A. Request for Consideration of Documents Incorporated by Reference
and for Judicial Notice
The Defendants have submitted four exhibits that they request the
Court review in ruling on the Motion. AHM requests that the Court
incorporates-by-reference the 2018 Honda Odyssey Warranty; the 2019
Honda Odyssey Warranty; and Alex L. Dykes's article regarding the
ZF 9HP 9-speed automatic transmission's dog clutches in the Jeep
Cherokee. Additionally, AHM requests the Court takes judicial
notice of a Road and Track article titled, "11 things you need to
know about the 2015 Acura TLX," which is cited in the complaint.
The Plaintiffs make no objection to these requests.
Regarding the Warranties, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
breached the "Basic Warranty" and "Powertrain Warranty" that come
with the Class Vehicles. Judge Freeman finds that these Warranty
documents are referred to in the FAC, central to the Plaintiffs'
claims, and not subject to questions of authenticity. Accordingly,
she grants AHM's request to incorporate these documents by
reference into the FAC.
Regarding the Dog Clutch Article, AHM argues that the Plaintiffs
have selectively quoted from this article in the FAC to support its
claim that the Transmission is defective. Judge Freeman finds it
appropriate to grant AHM's request to incorporate-by-reference the
Dog Clutch Article into the FAC. She also grants AHM's unopposed
request to take judicial notice of the Road and Track Article that
is referenced in the FAC, which was in the public realm at the
time.
B. Failure to Adequately Allege a Defect
AHM first argues that all of the Plaintiffs' claims should be
dismissed because all of their claims rely on the existence of a
defect, and they do not adequately plead a defect. In opposition,
the Plaintiffs argue that, whether the Class Vehicles are operating
as intended is a factual question improperly raised in the Motion.
They further argue that they sufficiently plead the defect is a
malfunction in software and computers controlling the
transmission.
While the Plaintiffs correctly assert that whether the Transmission
is operating as intended is a question of fact inappropriate for
the Court to rule on at this stage of the litigation, Judge Freeman
agrees with AHM that the Plaintiffs have only pled symptoms of a
defect and have not given AHM proper notice of what, exactly, it
must defend. Accordingly, since the Plaintiffs have failed to
adequately allege a defect in the Transmission, the Judge grants
AHM's motion to dismiss. Because the Plaintiffs could potentially
cure their own defect with amendment, the Judge dismisses the
complaint with leave to amend.
As Judge Freeman noted at the Hearing, there is some confusion as
to whether the Plaintiffs are pursuing a design, manufacturing, or
materials defect claim. Without an adequately alleged defect, she
cannot definitely rule on the Parties' arguments regarding the
alleged express and implied warranty claims, as well as the
statutory fraud claims, which must meet the Rule 9(b) particularity
pleading standard, and the equitable relief claims, which require
the Plaintiffs to establish that they have no adequate remedy at
law. The Judge does briefly address these issues to provide the
Plaintiffs with guidance for their amended complaint.
C. Implied Warranty Claims
AHM argues that the Plaintiffs' breach of implied warranty claims
fail because they have not alleged facts showing that the Class
Vehicles are unmerchantable, or unfit for sale and ordinary use.
For Ms. Browning's specific breach of implied warranty claim under
Florida law, Judge Freeman concludes Florida law does not recognize
a third-party beneficiary exception to the privity of contract
requirement for a breach of implied warranty claim. The FAC
alleges Ms. Browning purchased her Class Vehicle from Coggin Honda
of Orlando, not from the Defendants. Thus "no privity exists
between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants." Because any amendment
of this claim would be futile, the Judge dismisses Ms. Browning's
claim for breach of implied warranty with prejudice.
Regarding Mr. and Mrs. Pappas and their implied warranty claims
under Ohio law, the Judge finds that privity with the seller is
required under Ohio Rev. Code Section 1302.27(A). Mr. and Ms.
Pappas have not brought a tort-based implied warranty claim in the
current version of the complaint, and therefore they must be able
to allege privity to bring a contract-based implied warranty
claim.
For Mr. Yong's Texas implied warranty claim and Mr. and Mrs.
Wescott's Michigan implied warranty claim, the Judge finds they
must properly plead pre-suit notice. Sje notes that "each named
Plaintiff's claim must be pled individually, and will stand or fall
individually," so Mr. Yong and Mr. and Mrs. Wescott must plead
their own notice claims and not rely on notice given by any other
person.
D. Express Warranty Claims
As a threshold matter, AHM argues that the warranties do not cover
design defects.
Judge Freeman agrees with AHM that design defects are not covered
by these types of warranties. She says, if the Plaintiffs want to
pursue express warranty claims, they must adequately plead a defect
other than a design defect. Additionally, the Plaintiffs such as
Mr. and Mrs. Pappas and Mr. Boatwright, who only allege that they
brought their Class Vehicles in for repair once, cannot pursue
express warranty claims as currently pled. All the Plaintiffs
will, at a minimum, need to plead that they brought their Class
Vehicles in for repair more than once.
E. Statutory Fraud Claims
The Plaintiffs bring fraud claims based on alleged omissions on the
part of AHM.
As an initial matter, Judge Freeman holds that the Plaintiffs must
distinguish what action AHM took from what action Defendant Honda
Motor Company LTD took in the alleged fraud. Additionally, they
have not specifically alleged the content of the omission and where
the omitted information should or could have been revealed. The
Plaintiffs have also not sufficiently alleged that AHM had pre-sale
knowledge of any alleged defect.
Regarding the claim by Mr. and Mrs. Wescott under the Michigan
Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), the Judge agrees with the
Defendants that claims related to "the manufacture, sale, and lease
of automobiles" cannot form the basis for a claim under the MCPA.
Thus, she dismisses Mr. and Mrs. Wescott's claim under the MCPA
with prejudice because any amendment would be futile.
Additionally, the Judge finds that Mr. Boatwright's claim under
South Carolina Manufacturers, Distributors, and Dealers Act, S.C.
Code Ann. Section 56-15-10, et seq., fails because, according to
the statute, "In an action brought pursuant to this article, venue
is in the State of South Carolina. A provision of a franchise or
other agreement with contrary provisions is void and
unenforceable." Accordingly, any amendment of this claim would be
futile, and the Judge dismisses Ms. Boatwright's claim under South
Carolina Manufacturers, Distributors, and Dealers Act with
prejudice.
F. Equitable Claims
Finally, Judge Freeman finds that, since the Plaintiffs have not
pled that they lack an adequate remedy at law, all their equitable
claims, including those for restitution and prospective injective
relief, fail. For the Plaintiffs to proceed with any claims for
equitable relief, they must allege facts showing that they lack an
adequate remedy at law.
Order
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Freeman granted AHM's motion to
dismiss. The claims alleging breach of implied warranty under
Florida law, a violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act,
and a violation of the South Carolina Manufacturers, Distributors,
and Dealers Act are dismissed with prejudice. All other claims are
dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiffs may only amend the
existing claims of the current parties and will file an amended
complaint within 30 days of the date of the Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 16, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/8bzhkets from Leagle.com.
AMERIFACTORS FINANCIAL: Bid to Certify Class in Career Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Career Counseling, Inc., d/b/a Snelling Staffing
Services, a South Carolina corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Amerifactors Financial Group, LLC, and John Does 1-5,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-03013-JMC (D.S.C.), Judge J.
Michelle Childs of the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina, Columbia Division, denies Career Counseling's
Motion for Class Certification.
Plaintiff Career Counseling, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, filed the instant putative class action seeking
damages and injunctive relief from Defendants Amerifactors
Financial Group, LLC ("AFGL") and John Does 1-5 for alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") of
1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 ("JFPA"),
47 U.S.C. Section 227, and the regulations promulgated under the
TCPA by the United States Federal Communications Commission
("FCC").
Career Counseling is an employment staffing agency, which acts as a
middleman between employers and prospective workers. AFGL is an
accounts receivable financing firm that engages in factoring.
Factoring is a process in which AFGL purchases a business's
accounts receivable of unpaid invoices for a discounted price with
the intention of collecting the full value of the unpaid invoices
at a later date. In June of 2016, AFGL became interested in
marketing by fax and, as a result, contracted with AdMax, a fax
marketer.
Career Counseling asserts that unsolicited faxes were sent by or on
behalf of AFGL to 58,945 other recipients.
On Sept. 2, 2016, Career Counseling filed a putative Class Action
Complaint in this court alleging violation of the TCPA. On Oct.
28, 2016, AFGL filed a Motion to Dismiss. After the parties
responded and replied to the Motion to Dismiss, the Court entered
an Order that granted AFGL's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1) and dismissed the Class Action Complaint without
prejudice.
After receiving leave from the Court, Career Counseling filed a
First Amended Class Action Complaint on Nov. 28, 2017, alleging
revised class claims for violation of the TCPA. AFGL then filed a
Motion to Dismiss on Dec. 21, 2017, and a Motion to Stay Litigation
Pending Resolution of Petition Before the FCC on Feb. 2, 2018. On
Sept. 28, 2018, the Court granted the stay, but denied the Motion
to Dismiss with leave to refile. It subsequently extended the stay
twice.
In response to the petition by AFGL asking the FCC "to clarify that
faxes sent to 'online fax services' are not faxes sent to
'telephone facsimile machines,'" the Consumer and Government
Affairs Bureau ("CGAB") issued a declaratory ruling on Dec. 9,
2019, finding that an online fax service that receives faxes "sent
as email over the Internet" is not protected by the TCPA.
The Court lifted the stay on Jan. 8, 2020, but stayed the case
again on April 16, 2020, after being informed by AFGL that it had
sent a Notice of Constitutional Challenge to the Attorney General
of the United States pursuant to Rule 5.1(a) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure drawing into question the constitutionality of
the TCPA, as amended by the JFPA. On May 18, 2020, the Government
filed a response to AFGL's Notice of Constitutional Challenge
asserting that "intervention was premature prior to the Defendants'
filing a motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds."
On July 15, 2020, AFGL filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). After
considering the parties extensive briefing, the Court denied AFGL's
Motion to Dismiss on Dec. 22, 2020. Thereafter, AFGL answered the
Amended Complaint and the parties engaged in extensive discovery
regarding the extent to which the facsimile at issue was sent to
the putative class.
On March 16, 2021, Career Counseling filed the instant Rule 23
Motions. On April 15, 2021, AFGL filed a Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to Motion for Class Certification, to which Career
Counseling filed a Reply in Support of Its Motion for Class
Certification on April 30, 2021. The Court heard argument from the
parties as to their respective positions at a hearing on May 19,
2021.
Again, the matter is before the court on Career Counseling's Motion
for Class Certification, Motion to Appoint Class Counsel, and
Motion to Appoint Class Representative pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Career Counseling
"requests that the Court certifies its proposed Class A, or, in the
alternative, Class B, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3),
appoint Career Counseling the class representative, and appoint its
counsel as the class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)."
AFGL opposes the Motions arguing that Career Counseling "fails to
meet its burden to establish predominance or that its proposed
class is ascertainable, as required under both Rule 23 and Fourth
Circuit law" and "cannot demonstrate that it is an adequate or
typical class representative, or that its proposed class counsel
can meet their duty to the proposed class."
Analysis
A. The Parties' Arguments
1. Motion for Class Certification
Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Career Counseling moves the Court to certify the
following proposed class: All persons or entities who were
successfully sent a fax, on or about June 24 and 28, 2016, stating:
AmeriFactors--Funding Is Our Business, and AmeriFactors is ready to
help your company with your financing needs.
In the alternative, "if the Court finds it necessary to distinguish
between faxes received on a 'stand-alone' fax machine versus faxes
received via an 'online fax service,'" Career Counseling moves for
certification of a class defined as follows: All persons or
entities who were successfully sent a fax to their stand-alone fax
machine, on or about June 24 and 28, 2016, stating:
Amerifactors--Funding Is Our Business, and Amerifactors is ready to
help your company with your financing needs.
2. Motion to Appoint Class Representative
Career Counseling contends that it "should be appointed class
representative, as it has no conflicts and will actively and
adequately prosecute this action." AFGL opposes the appointment of
Career Counseling as class representative.
3. Motion to Appoint Class Counsel
Career Counseling asserts that "the law firms of McGowan, Hood &
Felder, and Anderson + Wanca, are highly experienced in
class-action litigation and, in particular, TCPA class-action
litigation, and should be appointed class counsel under Rule
23(g)." AFGL opposes the appointment of Career Counseling's
attorneys as class counsel.
4. Relevance of the CGAB's Ruling
The parties expressly disagree regarding the relevance of the
CGAB's declaratory ruling. Career Counseling appears to contend
that the Court's Dec. 22, 2020 Order makes the declaratory ruling
inapposite. However, even if this is not the case, Career
Counseling asserts that the CGAB's declaratory ruling is an
interpretive ruling and under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S.
134, 140 (1944), and Fourth Circuit law is "entitled to respect
only to the extent it has the power to persuade." Ultimately,
Career Counseling asserts that the CGAB's declaratory ruling has
"no power to persuade and is entitled to no deference."
AFGL counters arguing that the Court is bound to defer to the
CGAB's ruling pursuant to the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 2342,
and, alternatively, should accept the ruling and defer to it as
required by Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
467 U.S. 837 (1984). However, even if the court agrees with Career
Counseling that the declaratory ruling is only entitled to Skidmore
deference, AFGL argues that the CGAB's ruling is persuasive because
it (1) came from the expert at interpreting the TCPA, (2) gives
appropriate meaning to the TCPA's statutory language, and (3) "is
consistent with both prior and later pronouncements."
B. The Court's Review
1. Relevance of the CGAB's Ruling
On Dec. 9, 2019, the CGAB issued a declaratory ruling effectively
finding that faxes sent to 'online fax services' are not faxes sent
to 'telephone facsimile machines.'" Judge Childs observes that the
parties' instant class certification dispute requires it to first
consider whether the CGAB's ruling is entitled to Hobbs Act
deference. The Hobbs Act is applicable if a ruling is (1) of the
FCC, (2) final, and (3) legislative instead of interpretive.
As to the first element, the Judge finds that the CGAB's ruling is
of the FCC. The CGAB is a bureau that "acts for the FCC under
delegated authority" in matters of "adjudication and rulemaking."
The appropriate authority has been delegated to the CGAB both by
the FCC and by Congress in statute. Therefore, the CGAB acts as a
delegated authority under the FCC, and any order from the CGAB
should be treated as if it were from the FCC.
Next, the Judge observes that the CGAB's ruling is legislative,
instead of interpretive. The FCC has statutory authority to
"promulgate binding legal rules" to carry out the Communications
Act of 1934 (which includes the TCPA). That authority was
delegated to the CGAB by the FCC and the Congress. The parties,
however, disagree on whether the CGAB issued a general notice of
proposed rulemaking to fulfill step one. Career Counseling argues
that the CGAB's public notice for comment on the AFGL's petition
"does not even come close to meeting the APA requirements" and that
"no rule was ever published in the Federal Register or codified in
the FCC's regulations." Because the CGAB's declaratory ruling was
issued by "an agency pursuant to statutory authority" and has
"force and effect of law" from completing the three step notice and
comment rulemaking process, the ruling is legislative and not
interpretive.
Lastly, the Judge finds that the CGAB's declaratory ruling is
final. Even though the FCC has the authority to stay the CGAB's
ruling, it has not yet done so and neither has Career Counseling
specifically requested a stay on the ruling while the appeal is
being processed. Therefore, it stands to reason that under 47
C.F.R. Section 1.102(1), the CGAB's ruling is in effect until the
FCC says otherwise in response to an appeal.
As a result of the foregoing, the Judge is required to find that
the CGAB's declaratory ruling is entitled to Hobbs Act deference.
If there is a putative class in the case, it will not have class
members who received a fax from AFGL by means of an online fax
service.
2. Motion for Class Certification
A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)
Upon consideration, Judge Childs is persuaded that Career
Counseling satisfies Rule 23(a)'s enumerated requirements of
"numerosity," "commonality," "typicality," and "adequacy." More
specifically, she observes that numerosity is satisfied because
there are an estimated 20,989 members in the alternative Class B,
who allegedly received faxes to their stand-alone fax machines in
violation of the TCPA, as amended by the JFPA. Plainly, such a
large number makes joinder impracticable.
Second, commonality is satisfied because Counseling's general claim
regarding its receipt of an unsolicited fax to a stand-alone fax
machine is not different from the claims of the absent class
members. Third, typicality, which is similar to commonality, is
satisfied because Career Counseling and the putative class have an
interest in prevailing in similar legal claims. Fourth, adequacy
of representation is satisfied because Career Counseling appears to
be capable of fairly and adequately representing the interests of
the putative class members who received a fax to a stand-alone fax
machine.
However, implicit within Rule 23 is the "requirement that the
members of a proposed class be 'readily identifiable.'" In other
words, members of a class must be ascertainable. This does not
mean every member of the class needs to be identified at the time
of certification; rather, that there must be a "administratively
feasible way for the Court to determine whether a particular
individual is a member" at some point. The burden is on the
plaintiff as the party moving to certify the class.
In this case, Career Counseling must prove that a class of all
persons or entities who were successfully sent the fax in question
to a stand-alone fax machine is ascertainable. Judge Childs finds
that it would need to make an individualized inquiry of each class
member to determine if the fax number identified in the fax log
actually was linked to a stand-alone fax machine on June 28, 2016.
Because such individualized inquiries are necessary to ascertain
the class, Class B is not ascertainable, and class certification is
inappropriate. Accordingly, she finds that Career Counseling
cannot satisfy all of the requirements of Rule 23(a).
B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)
Because Career Counseling cannot satisfy all of Rule 23(a)'s
requirements, consideration of whether it meets Rule 23(b)'s
requirements of predominance and superiority is futile.
3. Motion to Appoint Career Counseling Class Representative
Because Judge Childs did not certify a putative class, Career
Counseling's pending Motion to Appoint It Class Counsel is now
moot.
4. Motion to Appoint Class Counsel
As a result of her decision to deny the Motion for Class
Certification, the Judge finds the Career Counseling's Motion to
Appoint Class Counsel is moot.
Conclusion
Upon careful consideration of the entire record and the parties'
arguments, Judge Childs denies Plaintiff Career Counseling's Motion
for Class Certification. Further, she denies as moot Career
Counseling's Motion to Appoint Class Counsel and Motion to Appoint
Class Representative.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 16, 2021 Order & Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/vx3ej3vs from Leagle.com.
AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG: Settlement Reached in Opioid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Six, writing for Richmond Register, reports that on July 21,
a major milestone was reached in the opioid crisis that has ravaged
Madison County, small towns, and the commonwealth.
Attorney General Daniel Cameron announced a $26 billion settlement
from lawsuits against the nation's top three distributors of opioid
drugs, claiming the distributors have created a public nuisance and
are guilty of negligence in failing to properly handle suspicious
orders of controlled substances.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc., and
McKesson Corporation are named as defendants in the suit.
The three companies control about 85% of the market nationally for
prescription opioid distribution, according to court documents.
Johnson and Johnson was also included in the lawsuit.
"This settlement is a result of investigations by our office and
attorney generals across the country about how these distributors
failed to fulfill their legal duty by shipping opioids to
pharmacies that submitted suspicious drug orders and how Johnson
and Johnson mislead both patients and doctors about opioid drugs,"
Cameron said.
The state of Kentucky stands to receive $460 million which will go
to provide state and local governments. The funds are required to
go towards addiction and opioid abatement programs. Once the
agreement is finalized, $21 billion will be paid over 18 years from
the three pharmaceutical companies, and Johnson and Johnson will
pay $5 billion over nine years.
Cameron said while this does not conclude the process, the
announcement is a major step to return money to the commonwealth.
"There is hardly a family anywhere in the commonwealth that has
been immune to the scourge of opioids," Cameron said. "We have lost
thousands of our fellow Kentuckians and seen families and children
torn apart by the grips of addiction. Today's announcement is for
each one of them. For the mom who lost her son in the prime of
life. For the father who begs their daughter to enter treatment.
For the little girl in foster care that prays everyday her parents
will get better and that she can return home. These are so often
the stories of the opioid epidemic and these are the Kentuckians we
are fighting for."
Some of these funds, once acquired by the state, will go to Madison
County, who was one of the first governments to sign on to the
lawsuit in 2017 and alleged the distributors have unlawfully sold
millions of prescription opioids in the county, which resulted in
the drugs entering the illicit market.
Madison County Judge and Kentucky Association of Counties President
Reagan Taylor was present at the press conference on July 21, and
said it was an honor to be there.
"On behalf of Madison County, KACo, and the 120 counties across the
commonwealth, [July 21] marks a huge step in our fight to bring --
a small way -- justice to communities across the commonwealth that
have been devastated and impacted by the horrific effects of the
drug epidemic," Taylor shared.
He stated as one of the first counties to join the class action
opioid lawsuit, Madison County sent a loud and clear message to
some of the largest players in the prescription drug distribution
ring this government will not allow those actions to go unchecked.
"During my time in office, I have shouted from the rooftop that the
drug epidemic has been the root of so many of issues in Madison
County: our detention center overcrowding, the impact on our first
responders, demand on our health care system, the exhaustion of our
social service providers, and the impact on our workforce, to name
a few," Taylor said. "While we don't know locally the full impact
of the settlement for Madison County, I will work tirelessly to
ensure Madison County gets its fair share of the settlement
funds."
According to the Kentucky Overdose Fatality Report from 2019, 53
overdose deaths were confirmed for a 62.32% age-adjusted mortality
rate in Madison County.
In December 2020, the overdose record was surpassed when there were
around 57 overdose deaths confirmed at the end of the year.
As of July 21, Madison County Coroner Jimmy Cornelison said he has
42 confirmed overdose deaths, and 13 toxicology reports pending. He
expects this year's overdose rate to surpass that of previous
years.
While Cameron and Taylor said this will not conclude the process,
the AG's office will have 30 days to review the settlement
agreement and make sure they are the right terms for the
commonwealth before it will move forward. [GN]
ARGO TEA: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Argo Tea, Inc. The
case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Argo Tea, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-06389
(S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Argo Tea -- https://www.argotea.com/ -- is a chain of tea cafes
that was founded in the Lincoln Park community area in Chicago,
Illinois, in June 2003.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
AT&T MOBILITY: Jarrat Consumer Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CASEY JARRAT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC, Case No.
34-2021-00302103-CU-BT-GDS, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California on July 22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-01298-MCE-KJN to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Civil Code, the California Legal Remedies Act, and the
California Unfair Competition Law by charging late fees to
California residents.
AT&T Mobility LLC is an American telecommunications company, with
its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Archis A. Parasharami, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006-1101
Telephone: (202) 263-3000
Facsimile: (202) 263-3300
E-mail: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com
BACKLINKO LLC: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BACKLINKO LLC and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-05900
(C.D. Cal., July 21, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged
negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant placed calls on her
cellular telephone number ending in -8950 beginning in or around
March 9, 2020 in an effort to sell or solicit its services. The
Defendant purportedly did not obtain the Plaintiff's "prior express
consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing
system (ATDS) or an artificial or prerecorded voice on her cellular
telephone. In addition, the Plaintiff told the Defendant at least
once to stop contacting them on her cellular telephone number that
has been registered on the Do-Not-Call Registry for at least 30
days prior to the Defendant contacting him, says the suit.
Because the Plaintiff was harmed by the Defendant's alleged
unsolicited telephone calls by causing her to incur certain charges
or reduced telephone time for which she had previously paid, and by
invading her privacy, the Plaintiff brings this complaint as a
class action against the Defendant seeking statutory damages,
treble damages, an injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant's
unlawful conduct in the future, and other relief that the Court
deems just and proper.
Backlinko LLC is a digital marketing and consulting company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Guerrero Suit Over Improper Banking Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS GUERRERO, MAUREEN YOUNG, RACHELLE BLAKE, SHERIDINE HARRIS,
and RHONDA MCDONALD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00333-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C., July 9, 2021) alleges
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the Class transacted
millions of dollars in foreign currencies with their Visa and
Mastercard-branded Bank of America payment cards during the
relevant time period. Bank of America's alleged illegal conduct has
caused Plaintiffs and the Class Members to pay more for foreign
transactions than they would have paid if Bank of America had
complied in good faith with its contractual obligations to charge
wholesale foreign exchange ("FX") market rates rather than
contrived rates. Class Members paid more because the FX rates were
less favorable than those promised in the relevant contracts and
also because Bank of America's conduct inflated the amount involved
in each transaction, thereby causing Class Members to pay higher
foreign transaction fees, which are usually a percentage of the
total transaction amount, and to pay more in credit card interest
than they would have paid had to pay had the transaction value had
not been improperly inflated, added the suit.
The complaint further states that the imposition of high exchange
rates operates to the banks' benefit because it inflates the
overall value of the transaction. This leads to a larger credit
card balance which translates to higher interest payments on card
balances. For transactions where the cardholder is also obligated
to pay a percentage of the transaction as a foreign transaction
fee, the inflated total transaction amount also translates into a
higher fee for the bank on a percentage basis. The Processors make
money on the difference between the rate they charge consumers to
engage in the foreign transaction, and the rate, if any, the
Processors actually pay to acquire the foreign currency used to
settle the transaction. When transactions are settled in the
consumer's home currency, where no foreign currency is used at all,
the Processors' hidden manipulation of the FX rates charged to
cardholders enables them to profit at the expense of the
cardholder. Because the Processors also receive a percentage of the
value of each transaction as a processing fee, they also benefit
directly from inflated transaction amounts.
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. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
900 W Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
E-mail: dbryson@milberg.com
pwallace@milberg.com
-and-
Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3009
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
-and-
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5933
Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
BATH & BODY: Faces Perez Suit Over Mislabeled Skin Care Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARMEN PEREZ and ANDREA BROOKS, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated v. BATH & BODY WORKS, LLC; BRANDS, INC., Case
No. 5:21-cv-05606-SVK (N.D. Cal., July 21, 2021) is a case about
Defendants' Hyaluronic Acid Products lines that falsely represent
that the hyaluronic acid, an ingredient in the products, "attracts
and retains up to 1,000x its weight in water" to "instantly
replenish moisture for smooth, hydrated skin" or "make skin look
smoother and more supple."
The Defendants market and sell a series of products as "WATER" and
"HYDRATING." The Defendants have profited enormously from their
false marketing campaigns, while their customers are left with
overpriced, ineffective skin care products, alleges the suit.
The Defendants are large companies that sell skin care products
under the brand name "Bath & Body Works." To increase their sales,
Defendants trick consumers by making false claims about the
capabilities of their products. The Defendants allegedly do not
disclose to consumers that their products are scientifically
incapable of achieving the promised results.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' representations
regarding the Hyaluronic Acid Products are false and misleading.
The Defendants represent that the hyaluronic acid in their
Hyaluronic Acid Products can attract and retain up to 1000 times
its weight in water. That representation is false. Hyaluronic acid
is incapable of absorbing anywhere near 1,000 times its weight in
water, even when it is in its anhydrous (i.e., waterless;
completely dry) form.
Hyaluronic acid is the most capable of absorbing water when it is
in its anhydrous form. But the hyaluronic acid contained in the
Hyaluronic Acid Products is already saturated with water. Indeed,
the first ingredient in all of the Products is water. Because the
hyaluronic acid contained in these products is already
water-saturated, it is incapable of absorbing any additional water
at all, let alone "attract[ing] and retain[ing] up to 1,000x its
weight in water," as Defendants claim.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Anthony Patek, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 336-6545
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
anthony@gutridesafier.com
BATTERIES PLUS: Faces Class Action Under New Telemarketing Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Closner Lee, Esq., of CompliancePoint, in an article for
Compliance Point, reported that on June 29, 2021, Florida Governor
DeSantis signed SB1120 into law updating provisions of the Florida
Consumer Protection Statutes related to telemarketing. Among the
key updates to the Florida calling rules includes a requirement
that callers obtain express written consent prior to placing sales
or marketing calls with "an automated system for the selection or
dialing of telephone numbers or the playing of a recorded message."
Additionally, the law added a private right of action for
violations of the Telephone Solicitation section of the Florida
Consumer Protection laws and a presumption that calls to Florida
area codes are calls to persons in the state. These updates went
into effect July 1, 2021, only two days after the Governor signed
the bill.
On July 13, 2021, the first class action under the new Florida
calling rules was filed in Cooper v. Batteries Plus. The complaint
alleges that the defendant, Batteries Plus, sent text messages
using "a computer software system that automatically selected and
dialed Plaintiff's and Class members' telephone numbers." The class
of Plaintiffs includes "all persons in Florida who (1) were sent a
telephonic sales call regarding Defendant's goods and/or services,
(2) using the same equipment or type of equipment utilized to call
the Plaintiff." The Defendant has yet to file their answer to this
complaint.
This case could shed light on how broadly Florida courts will
interpret an automated system under the law. [GN]
BEECAN HEALTH: Labor Class Action Pending in Los Angeles Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles employment law attorneys, at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against Beecan
Health LLC, alleging the company violated the California Labor
Code. The lawsuit against Beecan Health LLC is currently pending in
the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 21STCV24502. To
read a copy of the Complaint, please click https://bit.ly/3rJCVUA.
According to the lawsuit filed, States Logistics Services, 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 Beecan Health LLC committed acts of
unfair competition in violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the
"UCL"), by engaging in a company-wide policy and procedure which
allegedly failed to accurately calculate and record all missed meal
and rest periods and failed to pay all minimum and overtime wages
due to Plaintiff and California Class Members.
For more information about the class action lawsuit against Beecan
Health LLC, 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***
Media Contact:
Nicholas De Blouw, Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP,
(800) 568-8020, nick@bamlawca.com [GN]
BLAZING BULL: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blazing Bull, Inc.
The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Blazing Bull, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-06390 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Blazing Bull -- https://blazingbullgrills.com/ -- is a
revolutionary portable infrared barbecue grill, made in the USA,
that delivers premium steakhouse quality taste in any outdoor
are.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
BLUECITY HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of Sept. 17 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 26 disclosed that
purchasers of BlueCity Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: BLCT) American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to the
offering documents issued in connection with BlueCity's July 8,
2020 initial public offering ("IPO") have until September 17, 2021
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the BlueCity class action
lawsuit. The BlueCity class action lawsuit charges BlueCity,
certain of its top executives, the underwriters of BlueCity's IPO,
and others with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. The
BlueCity class action lawsuit is captioned Jiang v. BlueCity
Holdings Limited, No. 21-cv-04044, was commenced on July 19, 2021
in the Eastern District of New York, and is assigned to Judge
Frederic Block.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the BlueCity class action lawsuit, please provide your
information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C.
Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the BlueCity class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than September
17, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: The BlueCity class action lawsuit alleges that
BlueCity's offering documents were false or misleading and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) defendants had overstated BlueCity's
business and financial prospects; (ii) BlueCity was ill-equipped to
absorb the costs of becoming a publicly traded company, including
IPO- and growth-related costs; (iii) consequently, defendants had
misrepresented BlueCity's capability for sustainable growth; and
(iv) as a result, the offering documents were materially false or
misleading and/or failed to state information required to be stated
therein.
On December 2, 2020, BlueCity issued a press release announcing its
unaudited financial and operating results for the third quarter of
fiscal year 2020. BlueCity's press release reported, among other
results, that its cost of revenues had increased 41.3%
year-over-year, selling and marketing expenses had increased 86.3%
year-over-year, technology and development expenses had increased
49.5% year-over-year, and general and administrative expenses had
increased 4,349% year-over-year. BlueCity attributed its increased
costs to, among other things, the growth of revenue-sharing costs,
expenses related to its IPO, and increased advertising and
promotion expenses and staff costs. On this news, BlueCity's ADS
price fell by nearly 23%.
Then, on March 23, 2021, BlueCity issued a press release announcing
its results for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2020. Among other
results, BlueCity announced revenue of $42.7 million, missing
consensus estimates by $3.92 million. BlueCity also reported that
its cost of revenues had increased 29% year-over-year, selling and
marketing expenses increased 56.7% year-over-year, technology and
development expenses increased 9% year-over-year, and general and
administrative expenses had increased 345.5% year-over-year.
BlueCity attributed these increased costs to, among other things,
the growth of revenue-sharing costs and live streaming services,
increased advertising and promotion expenses and staff costs,
increased staff cost in technology and development personnel,
share-based compensation expenses, and increased professional fees
and staff cost. On this news, BlueCity's ADS price fell an
additional 26%, further damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased BlueCity ADSs
pursuant and/or traceable to the offering documents issued in
connection with BlueCity's IPO to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the BlueCity class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is
generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the BlueCity class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the BlueCity class action lawsuit. An investor's ability
to share in any potential future recovery of the BlueCity class
action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron
Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top
50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion
for investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by
any other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/firm.html for more information.
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
BRUNEL RESOURCES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wags, Trujillo Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY TRUJILLO, on behalf of himself and on behalf of al others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRUNEL RESOURCES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:21-cv-02377 (S.D. Tex., July 22, 2021) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a construction
coordinator from approximately June 2019 to January 2020.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated construction workers were improperly classified as exempt
from overtime by the Defendant. Despite regularly working more than
40 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay them overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
Instead, the Plaintiff was only paid flat hourly rate for all hours
he worked when he worked more than 40 hours in a week, and he was
paid actual hours he worked when he worked less than 40 hours in a
week, says the suit.
Brunel Resources, Inc. is a staffing company that places workers
with its client companies in the oil and gas, mining, engineering,
manufacturing, and IT industries across the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
Jerry W. Mason, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 523-0001
Fax: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
jmason@hftrialfirm.com
CARL NELSON: Abante Rooter Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBIG INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARL NELSON INSURANCE
AGENCY, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-05594-AGT (N.D. Cal., July 21, 2021) is
a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant placed multiple calls to
the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -5154 beginning
in or around June 22, 2020 in an attempt to solicit the Plaintiff
to purchase its insurance. The Defendant purportedly used an
"automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) in placing calls to
promote its services without obtaining the Plaintiff's "prior
express consent" to receive such calls using an ATDS or an
artificial or prerecorded voice.
As a result of the Defendant's alleged unsolicited telemarketing
calls, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons were
harmed by causing them to incur certain charges or reduced
telephone time for which they had previously paid, and by invading
their privacy. Thus, on behalf of itself and all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking statutory and
treble damages, an injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant's
unlawful conduct in the future, and other relief that the Court
deems just and proper.
Carl Nelson Insurance Agency, Inc. is an insurance company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
CARLOTZ INC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of September 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:
CarLotz, Inc. (NASDAQ:LOTZ, LOTZW)
Class Period: 12/30/2020 - 5/25/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 7, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-lotz/
DiDi Global Inc. (NYSE:DIDI)
Class Period: 6/30/2021 - 7/2/2021, or purchase of shares issued
either in or after the June 2021 Initial Public Offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 7, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-didi/
Coinbase Global Inc. (NASDAQ:COIN)
Class Period: Purchase of shares issued in connection with the
April 2021 Direct Offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 20, 2021
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-coin/
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients --
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contact:
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]
CARLOTZ INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of CarLotz, Inc.
(NASDAQ:LOTZ)(NASDAQ:LOTZW) between December 30, 2020 and May 25,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important September 7,
2021 lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased CarLotz securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the CarLotz class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2118.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 September 7, 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, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) due to a surge in inventory
during the second half of fiscal 2020, CarLotz was experiencing a
"logjam" resulting in slower processing and higher days to sell;
(2) as a result, the Company's gross profit per unit would be
negatively impacted; (3) to minimize returns to the corporate
vehicle sourcing partner responsible for more than 60% of CarLotz's
inventory, the Company was offering aggressive pricing; (4) as a
result, CarLotz's gross profit per unit forecast was likely
inflated; (5) CarLotz's corporate vehicle sourcing partner would
likely pause consignments to the Company due to market conditions,
including increasing wholesale prices; and (6) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements about CarLotz'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 CarLotz class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2118.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
CERRO WIRE: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Church Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER CHURCH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERRO WIRE, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 5:21-cv-00988-HNJ (N.D. Ala., July 20, 2021) brings this
complaint against the Defendant seeking for monetary damages and
other relief as a result of the Defendant's alleged willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
"Material Handler" from September 2020 until April 2021.
The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated
hourly-paid employees regularly worked more than 40 hours per week.
However, the Defendant paid them an improper overtime rate because
the Defendant failed to include the value of the nondiscretionary
bonuses paid to its employees in their regular rate of pay, thereby
failing to pay them proper overtime compensation at the federally
mandated overtime rate, the Plaintiff asserts.
Cerro Wire, LLC manufactures copper building wire. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Courtney Lowery, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
10800 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com
CG CONSULTING: Ousley Directed to File Third Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alicia Ousley v. CG
Consulting, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01744-SDM-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered an order:
1. adopting the Report and Recommendation issued by
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on July 1, 2021;
2. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint;
3. directing the Plaintiff to file a Third Amended Complaint
seven days from the date of this Order, omitting Counts
XI, XII -- or any claim arising under O.R.C. sections
4113.15, 4111.03.
4. directing the parties to submit a revised case schedule
within 14 days from the date of adoption, setting forth
revised deadlines relating to discovery, Rule 23 Class
Certification, and dispositive motions.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3l0c1GV at no extra charge.[CC]
CHOBANI LLC: Faces Austin Suit Over Mislabeled Yogurt Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA AUSTIN; and PETER HOFFMAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHOBANI, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-05949 (S.D.N.Y., July 12, 2021) alleges
violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, labels,
markets and sells yogurt products represented as "Fair Trade
Certified Dairy" ("Product"). The Plaintiffs saw the front label
that said, "Fair Trade Certified Dairy," with the logo, and
believed this meant workers were provided minimum protections which
were guaranteed and were not "best practices."
The Plaintiffs chose between the Defendant's Product and other
similar products which were represented similarly, but which did
not misrepresent their attributes and lower-priced products which
did not make the claims made by the Defendant. Had the Plaintiffs
and proposed class members known the truth of the Fair Trade
Certified Dairy - that it failed to assure a minimum of basic
worker protections, they would not have bought the Product or would
have paid less for it, says the suit.
The Product is sold for a price premium compared to other similar
products, no less than $3.99 per 32 ounces, a higher price than it
would otherwise be sold for, absent the misleading representations
and omissions.
CHOBANI, LLC produces dairy products. The Company offers yogurt,
ice-creams, milk, milk powder, and other dairy products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
Great Neck NY 11021-3104
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on July 25 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.
CCIV Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/churchill-capital-corp-iv-information-request-form?prid=17937&wire=1
RKT Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/rocket-companies-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17937&wire=1
DIDI Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/didi-global-inc-f-k-a-xiaoju-kuaizhi-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17937&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Image:
https://www.accesswire.com/users/newswire/images/656926/Rotating-Logo.jpgChurchill
Capital Corp IV (NYSE:CCIV)
CCIV Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased January 11, 2021
- February 22, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 30, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/churchill-capital-corp-iv-information-request-form?prid=17937&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, 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.
Rocket Companies, Inc. (NYSE:RKT)
RKT Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 25, 2021
- May 5, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 30, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/rocket-companies-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17937&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Rocket
Companies, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose 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.
Didi Global Inc. F/K/A Xiaoju Kuaizhi Inc. (NYSE:DIDI)
This lawsuit is on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired DiDi: (a) American Depositary Shares pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with the Company's June 2021 initial public
offering; and/or (b) securities between June 30, 2021 and July 2,
2021, inclusive.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 7, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/didi-global-inc-f-k-a-xiaoju-kuaizhi-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17937&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, (1) DiDi's apps did not comply
with applicable laws and regulations governing privacy protection
and the collection of personal information; (2) as a result, the
Company was reasonably likely to incur scrutiny from the Cyberspace
Administration of China; (3) the CAC had already warned DiDi to
delay its IPO to conduct a self-examination of its network
security; (4) as a result of the foregoing, DiDi's apps were
reasonably likely to be taken down from app stores in China, which
would have an adverse effect on its financial results and
operations; and (5) 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]
CLIENT SERVICES: Genzone Suit Moved From Supreme Ct. to E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Genzone v. Client Services,
Inc. et al., Case No. 609243/2021, was removed from the Suffolk
County Supreme Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Central Islip) on July 14, 2021.
The E.D.N.Y. Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-03995-DRH-ARL to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit arises from alleged violations related to consumer
credit. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Denis R. Hurley.
Client Services offers collection services. The Company provides
accounts receivable management, debt collection services, and
customer care solutions. The Defendant includes John and Jane Does
1-10.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Simon Goldenberg, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF SIMON GOLDENBERG PLLC
818 East 16 Street
Brooklyn, NY 11230
Telephone: (347) 640-4357
Facsimile: (347) 472-0347
E-mail: simon@goldenbergfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brendan Hoffman Little, Esq.
LIPPES MATHIAS WEXLER FRIEDMAN LLP
50 Fountain Plaza, Suite 1700
Buffalo, NY 14202
Telephone: (716) 853-5100
Facsimile: (716) 853-5199
E-mail: blittle@lippes.com
COINBASE GLOBAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Coinbase Global Inc. ("Coinbase" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: COIN)
from April 11, 2021 through July 22, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California alleges violations of the Securities Act of
1933.
If you purchased Coinbase securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Coinbase Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Rujul Patel toll free at (877)
779-1414 or rpatel@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that the registration statement and
prospectus used to effectuate the Company's Offering were false and
misleading and omitted to state that, at the time of the Offering:
(1) Coinbase required a sizeable cash injection; (2) Coinbase's
platform was susceptible to service-level disruptions, which were
increasingly likely to occur as the Company scaled its services to
a larger user base; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
On May 17, 2021, Coinbase undermined its representations in the
Offering Materials that the Company's existing cash and cash
equivalents were sufficient by announcing plans to raise capital
via a convertible bond sale. On May 19, 2021, Coinbase revealed
technical problems experienced by users on its platform, including
"delays…due to network congestion" effecting "those who want to
get their money out."
On this news, the price of Coinbase shares fell $23.44 per share,
nearly 10% over two consecutive trading sessions, to close at
$224.80 per share on May 19, 2021, thereby injuring investors.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 20, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Coinbase securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/coinbaseglobalinc-coin-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-419/apply/
or contact Rujul Patel toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
rpatel@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information:
Rujul Patel
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
rpatel@bernlieb.com [GN]
COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Ramsey Suit Over 10% Drop of Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD RAMSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., BRIAN ARMSTRONG,
ALESIA J. HAAS, JENNIFER N. JONES, SUROJIT CHATTERJEE, PAUL GREWAL,
MARC L. ANDREESSEN, FREDERICK ERNEST EHRSAM III, KATHRYN HAUN,
KELLY KRAMER, GOKUL RAJARAM, FRED WILSON, AH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
LLC, PARADIGM FUND LP, RIBBIT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, TIGER GLOBAL
MANAGEMENT, LLC, UNION SQUARE VENTURES, LLC, and VISERION
INVESTMENT PTE LTD., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05634 (N.D. Cal.,
July 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading registration statement and prospectus with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the resale of Coinbase
Class A common stock on or around April 14, 2021. The offering
materials were allegedly false and misleading and omitted to state
that, at the time of the offering: (1) Coinbase required a sizeable
cash injection; (2) the company's platform was susceptible to
service-level disruptions, which were increasingly likely to occur
as the company scaled its services to a larger user base; and (3)
as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements
about the company's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
When the truth emerged, the company's share price fell $23.44 per
share, nearly 10% over two consecutive trading sessions, to close
at $224.80 per share on May 19, 2021, thereby injuring investors,
the suit says.
Coinbase Global, Inc. is an American company that operates a
cryptocurrency exchange platform, headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware.
AH Capital Management LLC is a venture capital firm based in
Silicon Valley, California.
Paradigm Fund LP is an investment firm based in San Francisco,
California.
Ribbit Management Company, LLC is a venture capital firm based in
Palo Alto, California.
Tiger Global Management, LLC is an investment firm based in New
York, New York.
Union Square Ventures, LLC is a venture capital firm based in New
York, New York.
Viserion Investment Pte Ltd. is a venture capital incorporated in
Singapore. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
- and –
Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
Jonathan M. Zimmerman, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 233-6444
Facsimile: (212) 233-6334
E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
jzimmerman@scott-scott.com
COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Securities Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Smith, writing for The Coin Republic, reports that Coinbase
and officials are facing legal action over Nasdaq Listings. The
class action names CEO Brian Armstrong, CLO Paul Grewal, and
several top officials and several venture capital backers as
defendants besides Coinbase itself.
COINBASE CHARGED FOR PURPORTEDLY MISINFORMING INVESTORS.
A Coinbase shareholder charged Coinbase for purportedly
misinforming investors ahead of its public listing about the
Company's financial state and robustness as a crypto trading
platform. The securities class action was filed by law firm Scott +
Scott in the California Northern District Court on July 22. The
class action has named shareholder Donald Ramsey as a plaintiff,
both individually and on behalf of all other investors similarly
situated.
Ramsey has made United States Securities Act as the basis of his
claims and has presented and has extracts of Coinbase's regulatory
filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, company
press releases, analyst reports, and other publicly disclosed
information about the exchange as evidence The Company has been
made a party but the class action has also named CEO Brian
Armstrong, chief legal officer Paul Grewal and other top executives
as defendants, as well as several of its venture capital backers.
EXECUTIVES GAVE DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS.
Ramsey has leveled serious charges against Coinbase and its
executives. He accused the executives of offering significantly
deceptive statements in their offering materials at the time of the
public listing. He also accused Coinbase of offering positive
reports that lacked a reasonable basis.
Ramsey added that when Coinbase gave the offering, it was in dire
need of a sizable cash injection. The Company's platform was also
at risk of service level disruptions, which were increasingly
likely to occur. Ramsey said that when the alleged anomaly between
presentation and reality came into the public domain, Coinbase's
prices fell. Referring to events in mid-May,
Coinbase said it needs funds and accordingly announced plans to
raise $1.25 billion through a convertible bond sale. Ramsay noted
that the Company's stocks tanked by close to 10% in two trading
sessions.
The class-action points to contemporary media reports in mid-May,
citing a Forbes report on the bond sale announcement. Investors
were puzzled by the timing of the issue since Coinbase went public
in Mid April through direct listing where issuing new shares or
raising capital is not involved. It also meant that Coinbase does
not need any funds. After a month elapsed,
Coinbase issued bonds, and the timing raises many issues.
Ramsey also points out the technical difficulties on the platform
just when the market was in a bearish phase. On May 19, the market
turned brutally bearish, and investors were scrambling to get their
money out. However, they experienced "delays [. . .] due to network
congestion."
It was widely reported in the media that there were delays in Ether
(ETH) and ERC-20 token withdrawals due to congestion on the
Ethereum network.
`On that day, delays were experienced by users on both Coinbase and
Binance. Gemini exchange also announced that it is taking emergency
maintenance actions to correct ongoing issues.
The class action described the service-level technical issues
contrary to the Company's claims to be the most accessible place to
buy and sell crypto in the retail market. Since the Company is
reliant on transaction fees as its revenue, this is even more
important.
When Ramsey started the class action, Coinbase's stock was trading
at $208 per share, compared to its opening price of $381 on April
14. Counsel for the defendants had reportedly not yet appeared as
of July 22. [GN]
COLLOV INC: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collov, Inc. The case
is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Collov, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-06393
(S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Collov, Inc. -- https://collov.com/ -- is an interior designer in
Menlo Park, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
COLONIAL PIPELINE: Faces Class Action Over Ransomware Attack
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael McSweeney, writing for The Block, reports that more than
two months ago, the U.S. energy infrastructure firm Colonial
Pipeline was hit by a ransomware attack, an incident that resulted
in shortages at gas stations along the East Coast.
Now, at least one gas station operator is taking legal action
against Colonial, according to the Washington Post, signifying a
new post-attack phase long after much of the ransomware funds were
returned to Colonial.
Per the Post, North Carolina gas station operator Eddie Darwich has
filed suit against Colonial for negligence in what could become a
wider class-action lawsuit if approved.
"Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class to
exercise reasonable care to safeguard the Pipeline's critical
infrastructure, including protecting it from ransomware attacks,
and to safeguard the flow of the product, as a critical resource
over which Defendant exercised control," the complaint states.
According to the report, another lawsuit was filed in May and
another law firm is seeking to build a third case against
Colonial.
Against the backdrop of this legal action is a widening national
security response within the U.S. government, a process being
spurred on by the Biden White House.
Congress held a hearing on ransomware that focused largely on
cybersecurity spending and state actors, though cryptocurrency
factored in those discussions as well. White House officials have
previously said that enhanced cryptocurrency analytics tools would
play a role in the federal response to ransomware attacks,
ostensibly in an effort to trace payments and identify those behind
them. [GN]
CONOPCO INC: Goulart MMPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRANDI GOULART, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CONOPCO, INC., d/b/a UNILEVER, DOES 1
through 10, Case No. 2111-CC00201, was removed from the Circuit
Court of St. Charles County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri on July 22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00892-SRC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, breach of warranty and
implied contract, and unjust enrichment in connection with the sale
of certain Dove brand Invisible antiperspirant stick for women.
Conopco, Inc., doing business as Unilever, is a company that
provides personal care products, headquartered in New Jersey. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
James P. Muehlberger, Esq.
Douglas B. Maddock, Jr., Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
2555 Grand Boulevard
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 474-6550
Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
E-mail: jmuehlberger@shb.com
dmaddock@shb.com
CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: Hofstatter Balks at Unfair Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MORDECHAI HOFSTATTER, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers, Plaintiff v. CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE RECOVERIES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-04060-EK-JRC (E.D.N.Y., July 20,
2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for
its alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a
collection letter on or about November 6, 2020 in an attempt to
collect a balance allegedly incurred by the Plaintiff for personal
purposes. However, instead of preparing the letter and sent to the
Plaintiff on its own, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff's
information and his alleged debt to a commercial mail-house, who
prepared and mailed the letter to the Plaintiff's residence on
behalf of the Defendant. The Defendant unlawfully communicated with
the unauthorized third-party mail house solely for the purpose of
streamlining its generation of profits without regard to the
propriety and privacy of the information which it discloses to such
third-party, thereby violating the FDCPA, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendant's alleged unfair, abusive, deceptive
and misleading collection communications, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated consumers have suffered actual harm that
includes fear, stress, mental anguish, emotional stress, and acute
embarrassment for which they should be compensated in an amount to
be established by a jury at trial.
Convergent Healthcare Recoveries, Inc. is a debt collection agency.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Tel: (516) 668-6945
E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
CORMEDIX INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of CorMedix, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRMD) investors
that acquired shares between July 8, 2020 and May 13, 2021.
Investors have until September 20, 2021 to seek an active role in
this litigation.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.
It is alleged in this complaint that CorMedix made misleading and
false statements to the market. CorMedix suffered from deficiencies
in relation to DefenCath's manufacturing process. Based on these
deficiencies, it was unlikely that the FDA would approve CorMedix'
NDA for DefenCath. The Company downplayed the extent of these
manufacturing problems in its public statements. CorMedix' public
statements were materially misleading and false throughout the
class period, based on these facts. Investors suffered damages when
the market learned the truth about CorMedix.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
20, 2021.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]
CRAILTAP LLC: Davis Sues Over Website Inaccessibility to Blind
--------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN DAVIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CRAILTAP, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-06185 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2021) is a class action complaint
brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights
Law.
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and
a member of member of a protected class individuals under the ADA
and the regulations implementing the ADA and NYCHRL. The Plaintiff
has been using a popular screen reading software called NonVisual
Desktop Access when visiting a website.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's website has multiple
access barriers because when the Plaintiff visited the Website on
or around April 2021 with the intent of browsing and potentially
making a purchase, he was denied access similar to that of a
sighted individual. The Defendant's website purportedly lacked of a
variety of features and accommodations which effectively barred him
from being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the
Defendant's public accommodation.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination as a result of its failure to comply
with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, that would make
its website to be equally accessible to all and the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated visually-impaired individuals could
independently navigate the Website and complete a desired
transaction as sighted individuals do.
Crailtap, LLC is a skateboarding products and apparel company that
owns and operates the website www.crailstore.com. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Ave., Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Tel: (732) 695-3282
Fax: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com
CREDENCE RESOURCE: Toney Suit Removed from Supreme Ct. to E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Toney v. Credence Resource
Management LLC, Case No. 610625/2021, was removed from the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County, to the U.S.
District Court for Eastern District of New York (Central Islip) on
July 12, 2021.
The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-03914-JMA-ST to the proceeding.
The suit is brought over alleged consumer credit violations and is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Joan M. Azrack.
Credence Resource is a collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
Elizabeth Easley Apostola, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
660 Broadway
Paterson, NJ 07514
Telephone: (862) 227-3106
Facsimile: (862) 204-5901
E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com
ea@zemellawllc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kirsten H. Smith, Esq.
SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE, LLC
3850 North Causeway Boulevard, Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
Telephone: (504) 846-7943
E-mail: ksmith@sessions-law.biz
CREDIT SUISSE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Antitrust Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martina Bellini, writing for Global Legal Chronicle, reports that a
Cahill litigation team prevailed on behalf of Credit Suisse in
defeating a purported class action.
The class action was brought by plaintiffs alleging that Credit
Suisse, other bank defendants, and certain traders violated the
antitrust laws in connection with trading in the multi-trillion
dollar market for U.S. dollar-denominated supranational, sovereign,
and agency ("SSA") bonds.
On July 19, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims
against Credit Suisse and the other defendants, ruling that
plaintiffs had failed to allege a plausible antitrust conspiracy.
The Cahill litigation team included Herbert S. Washer, David G.
Januszewski, Elai Katz, Sheila C. Ramesh, Jason M. Hall, Adam S.
Mintz, Cyrus N. Bordbar, and George Harris. [GN]
CRESCO CAPITAL: Dahir Suit Removed to D. Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ali Dahir, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Cresco Capital, Inc., Lone Mountain Truck
Leasing, LLC, Case No. 21-cv-1700 was removed from the Minnesota
District Court, County of Hennepin, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota on July 26, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:21-cv-01700-ECT-KMM to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Cresco Capital Inc. -- https://www.lonemountaintruck.com/ --
provides commercial financing services. The Company provides
intermediate and long-term general and industrial credit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam R Strauss, Esq.
TARSHISH CODY, PLC
6337 Penn Ave. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55423
Phone: (952) 361-5556
Email: ars@attorneysinmn.com
The Defendant is represented by:
R. Henry Pfutzenreuter, Esq.
LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY & LINDGREN LTD.
8300 Norman Center Dr., Suite 1000
Minneapolis, MN 55437-1060
Phone: (952) 896-3325
Email: hpfutzenreuter@larkinhoffman.com
CVS PHARMACY: $9.75MM Class Settlement in Chalian Suit Has Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SEVAG CHALIAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. CVS PHARMACY,
INC., a Rhode Island corporation CVS RX SERVICES, INC., a New York
corporation; GARFIELD BEACH CVS, LLC, a California limited
liability company; and DOES 1 dun 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-08979-AB-AGR, Related Case No. 2:20-cv-02401-AB-AGR
(C.D. Cal.), Judge Andre Birotte, Jr., of the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California grants the Plaintiff's
Motion for Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
and Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class
Representative Incentive/Service Awards.
The Maximum Settlement Amount is equal to $9,750,000.
The matter came before the Court for hearing on Dec. 4, 2020, for
final approval of the Settlement. The parties have submitted their
Global Settlement Agreement evidencing their proposed settlement,
which the Court preliminarily approved in its Aug. 5, 2020 Order.
In accordance with the preliminary approval order, the Settlement
Class Members have been given notice of the terms of the Settlement
and the opportunity to object to it. In addition, pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1715, the
Attorney Generals of each state where Settlement Class members
resided at the time notice was issued have been given notice of the
Settlement. Notice of the Settlement was also provided to the
Labor and Workforce Development Agency.
The Court has received and considered the Global Settlement
Agreement dated March 2, 2020, as amended by the First Amendment to
Global Settlement Agreement dated Nov. 6, 2020 and the Second
Amendment to Global Settlement Agreement dated March 19, 2021, the
supporting papers filed by the parties, and the evidence and
argument received by the Court at the final approval hearing on
Dec. 4, 2020.
For the reasons explained at length in the Court's
concurrently-issued Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval and for an Award of Attorneys Fees, and overruling
objections, Judge Birotte grants final approval of the Settlement.
The Motion for Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement and Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and
Class Representative Incentive/Service Awards are granted in their
entirety.
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due process, the
Judge finally approves the Settlement set forth in the Settlement
Agreement, as amended, and finds that such Settlement is, in all
respects, fair, reasonable and adequate to the Settlement Class and
to each Settlement Class Member, that the Settlement is ordered
finally approved, and that all terms and provisions of the
Settlement should be and are ordered to be consummated. The Court
further finds that the Settlement Agreement, as amended, and the
Settlement set forth therein were entered into in good faith
following arms'-length negotiations and is noncollusive, and that
the Settlement Classes as defined in the Settlement Agreement be
certified for settlement purposes only pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3).
For purposes of the Judgment, the following Settlement Classes will
be certified:
a. Pharmacist Settlement Class: All hourly, non-exempt retail
pharmacists who worked in Regions 65 or 72 in California between
July 20, 2012 and the date of the Preliminary Approval Order, whose
claims are not subject to arbitration and who have not previously
released and/or adjudicated the Released Claims, and whose LEARNet
and/or Site Minder data indicates activity when time punch records
do not show he or she was clocked-in; and
b. Retail Pharmacy Settlement Class: Any person who is not a
member of the Pharmacist Settlement Class who held an hourly,
non-exempt position in a CVS retail pharmacy in the State of
California between Aug. 3, 2014 and the date of the Preliminary
Approval Order who has not previously released and/or adjudicated
the Released Claims.
The following Settlement Class Members have validly opted-out of
the action and are thus not bound by the Rule 23 settlement: 5748
Neil Patel, 6269 Felicia Ivy, 6315 Daisy Tavares, 13684 Kazim
Cevik, 14595 Yousef Trabouly, 19651 Pauline Mikhail, 12570 Marlcos
Abayhon, 19341 Mehrnaz Akhavan, 8294 Isabel Alexander, 4173 Behnam
Amir-Behboudi, 6538 Samantha Andrews, 15149 Jaweed Assar, 20088
Marisol Baez, 17671 Kristina Bailey, 13016 Johni Ballout, 11486
Brianna Bertrand, 272 Carmen Blanco, 16870 Dayna Bowles, 7181 Anne
Cabrera, 2340 Abel Cachola, 8946 Deisy Campbell, 2352 Heather Cano,
828 Celia Carlton, 5157 Steven Chalker, 9424 Maisha Cherry, 2267
Robyn Corry, 16088 Margee Mae Dela Cruz, 9972 Jose Delgado, 17656
Hardeep Dhillon, 19069 Michelle Dias, 10940 Meredieth Dorado, 18907
Regine Angela Duhon, 2871 Lamise Elsayed, 2026 Masoumeh Esfandiari,
16671 Consuelo Estrada-Rodriguez, 17291 Mary Fatouh Albana, 17259
Brittany Francisco, 10054 Diane Gailey, 7533 Candice Gamez, 13048
Elizabeth Gardner, 12988 Beshoy Gerges, 2794 Randall Gibbs, 13626
Devonna Gilmore, 153 Rachel Goff, 8421 Roxanna Gonzalez, 1447
Mehrnaz Hakimi, 3166 Stephanie Han, 4997 Tatiana Hartz, 18078
Jasmine Hashemieh-Estes, 17146 Deborah Haycox, 3253 Lisa Helgerson,
10376 Joanna Hernandez, 17789 Maribel Hernandez, 16630 Kaitlyn
Holdren, 5596 Heng Hsu, 22165 Ryan Hyams, 2439 Mahram Izoli, 23025
Nikkolae Jacinto, 23411 Melanie Jipp, 16937 Jeanny Keota, 8450
Harleen Khaira, 9308 Myoungja Kim, 23150 Diane Kim, 20697 Tiffany
King, 8620 Philip Kitchen, 4404 Amaris Lane, 19661 Shaina Larmore,
18278 Lyna Le, 13859 Michelle Masshar, 2924 Kelly Matsuura, 13251
Nora Meincke, 8236 Kyrollos Mekail, 18263 Shirin Moghtanei, 19186
Patricia Moore, 5123 Betty Nabizadeh, 18384 Maikel Nagib, 22403
Trent Nelson, 12127 Nikkie Nguyen, 1718 Marlon Ordenana, 19930
Shivjot Pabla, 13117 Elisha Pennington, 23700 Silva Petrosyan, 3275
Lieu Pham, 23101 Sarah Pollard, 19579 Steve Quan, 24118 Aryan
Rabbani, 23179 Randall Radtke, 23811 Mariam Rafiqi, 15683 Tiffany
Samouha, 15855 Michael Schmidt, 4561 Debbie Schultz, 1178 Daniel
Setiawan, 18681 Pontea Shabkhiz, 23120 Azaria Shahbazian, 19351
David Stillman, 7464 Jay Surati, 600 Amaar Taha, 16850 Alain Tong,
923 Robert Wilson, 20569 Mitchell Woothen, 5031 Jessica Xe, and
17989 Amir Zand.
Three Settlement Class Members validly objected to the Settlement:
Tina Lee, Parvin Ghassemian, and Trent Andrews. After thorough
review and careful consideration, Judge Birottte overrules all
objections made to the Settlement. He finds the proposed
Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and free from collusion.
He further finds the Plaintiffs and their counsel have met their
fiduciary obligations to the class.
As of the Settlement Effective Date, each and every Released Claim
as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, as amended, of each and
every Settlement Class Member is and will be deemed to be
conclusively released as against the Released Parties. All
Settlement Class Members as of the Effective Date are hereby
forever barred and enjoined from prosecuting the Released Claims
against the Released Parties.
The Settlement Administrator, Simpluris, Inc., will establish a
settlement fluid to be funded by the Defendants in accordance with
the provisions of the Parties' Settlement Agreement. The
Settlement Administrator will distribute: (1) checks representing
the individual settlement amounts made payable to the Settlement
Class Members; (2) Class Counsel's reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs; (3) the Class Representatives Incentive/Service Awards; (4)
payment to the LWDA; and (5) employee and employer payroll taxes.
The Dimmer and timing of said payments will be in accordance with
the Settlement Agreement. Any residual settlement funds remaining
as a result of settlement checks that remain uncashed for the
period set forth in the Settlement Agreement will be paid to the
unclaimed wages fluid of the State of California. For
administering the settlement, Simpluris will be paid $98,750 out of
the Gross Settlement Amount.
Pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures,
the Judge confirms the appointment of Michael S. Morrison of
Alexander Morrison and Fehr LLP, Michael H. Boyamian and Armand R.
Kizirian of Boyamian Law, Inc., Thomas W. Falvey of the Law Offices
of Thomas W. Falvey, R. Craig Clark and Alicja A. Urtnowski of
Clark Law Group, and Walter Haines of United Employees Law Group as
the Class Counsel.
The Judge awards the Class Counsel a reasonable attorneys' fee in
the amount of $2,592,836.65, and their litigation costs in the
amount of $32,385.77. He further approves the Class Representative
Incentive/Service awards for the Class Representatives as follows:
$10,000 each, to Sevag Chalian, Sigfredo Cabrera, Enko Telahun, and
Christine McNeely; and $3,000 to Patrick Breiman, each ($43,000 in
total).
The California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") will
be paid $56,250, which is its 75% share of the PAGA penalty.
The Court will maintain jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to
enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
Each party is to bear their own costs, except as expressly provided
in the Order and Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 16, 2021 Order & Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/rwjtrmk2 from Leagle.com.
DALLAS, TX: Lawsuit Over County Jail COVID Conditions Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Kyaw, writing for The Davis Vanguard, reports that in late
April 2020, shortly after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas and its partners
filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Dallas County Sheriff
Marian Brown in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas.
The lawsuit was continued again in July.
Representing nine plaintiffs, the filing comes in light of more
than 30 individuals in the jail testing positive for COVID-19 back
then. The lawsuit accuses Sheriff Brown and her department of
failing to take proper action in order to protect incarcerated
people from the novel virus.
Ideare Bailey, one of the nine plaintiffs, testified that when he
was arrested for property theft and landed in the Dallas County
Jail on April 6, he was not provided with a mask despite being
forced to live in close proximity in a dormitory with 60 other
people. He also had no feasible way to stay apart from the men
coughing in the dorm.
When Bailey inevitably got sick, the medical staff not only refused
to take his temperature until three whole days later but also were
negligent of his aftercare after his positive COVID-19 diagnosis.
Allegedly, they only gave Bailey a mask soon after he tested
positive and just gave him Tylenol to cope with the side effects.
They did not administer insulin for his diabetes nor check his
oxygen levels.
Other plaintiffs have also spoken out on how during the pandemic
the jail did not provide access to soap and cleaning supplies, had
a constant shortage of food and blankets, and were inconsistent in
giving out basic supplies like toilet paper.
The lawsuit is asking the District Court to immediately remove
medically at-risk people from jail and ensure that the jail
establishes proper health protocol to combat the virus spread, such
as providing sufficient cleaning supplies, testing regularly, and
enforcing physical distancing.
At the filing of the lawsuit, Alison Grinter of the NGAN Legal
Advocacy Fund stated that the COVID-19 pandemic "will spread faster
and hit harder in our jails and [the court] must take action now to
prevent needless deaths."
Terri Burke -- former executive director of ACLU of Texas -- also
commented, "People's lives are at stake . . . and [we are] asking
the court to take immediate action. We [must make] sure that our
vulnerable loved ones in jail don't get left behind and have a way
out."
However, reality often does not meet expectations.
The case has been pending for more than a year now and a trial was
initially scheduled to take place on July 27. But, citing the need
for the court to shuffle through an increasing backlog of motions,
U.S. District Judge Ada Brown ordered the postponement of the
upcoming trial and has yet to set a new date.
In light of this delay, objections have obviously erupted from ACLU
of Texas and advocates of their lawsuit.
ACLU of Texas staff attorney Brian Klosterboer stated that "this is
a lawsuit that could be resolved if the county takes some small
steps to keep people safe in jail" and the million dollars spent
fighting the lawsuit could have gone into actually solving the
growing health crisis in the jail.
Jails and prisons are generally accepted as one of the most
dangerous places amidst the pandemic as the outbreak of the virus
is much stronger in their facilities. Dallas County Jail is no
exception because during November last year, it was already one of
the worst hotspots for the disease in the country.
A study by the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the
University of Texas found that incarcerated people in Texas jails
and prisons tested positive at a rate of 490 percent higher than
the state's general population.
Evidently, according to an ACLU of Texas statement earlier this
month, the situation in the Dallas County Jail has not improved
much since the filing of the lawsuit in that it "still does not
provide comprehensive testing for COVID-19 . . . [and even] failed
its annual inspection for the first time in years . . . due in part
to a failure to provide soap and hygiene products [to detainees]."
As of May 2021, it has also purportedly administered vaccines to,
at most, just 25 percent of the jail's population.
The postponement of the lawsuit also comes at an untimely period -
the Delta variant is causing a resurgence of COVID-19 cases and
hospitalizations statewide. This can "put inmates at heightened
risk" of contracting the virus as Klosterboer noted.
In response to the court's order, a Dallas County District
Attorney's Office spokesperson said by email that their office "has
no comment regarding the pending litigation and will await further
rulings from the court."
On July 21, the ACLU of Texas declared on Twitter that despite this
setback, it "will continue to advocate for [the] safety and
dignity" of people in jails, prisons, and detention centers. [GN]
DAPPER LABS: Faces Class Action Over Non-Fungible Token
-------------------------------------------------------
John Farmer, writing for Richmond Times-Dispatch, reports that are
you interested in NFTs? You will have to use them eventually. What
does your future hold?
NFT stands for non-fungible token. It's a record on a blockchain of
the ownership and transfer history of an asset.
Blockchain technology is attractive because it creates an
unalterable computer record of information. Cryptocurrencies are
used to buy and sell stuff on blockchains. The blockchain keeps a
record of the sales prices and cryptocurrency transfers.
You probably have heard of popular NFTs such as digital art, the
digital version of sports trading cards (such as NBA Top Shot), and
selling weapons and land in video games.
While those things might not interest you, future NFT uses will be
unavoidable. That's because NFTs are a great way to authenticate a
credential, record ownership and transfer of an asset and sell
tickets.
Consider credentials. Anything you might put on your resume or your
LinkedIn profile could be recorded in an NFT.
Doing so would stop resume fraud. Your high school and college
diplomas might be NFTs. Any award you win, certification you
achieve, and job you hold might be recorded in an NFT.
Your resume might become an amalgamation of such NFTs.
Also consider transactions in assets for which title records are
kept. The titles to your house and car might be recorded in NFTs,
along with bank liens.
All sales might occur in a blockchain marketplace, including
recording the purchase price and making payment in digital
currency.
Right now, titles to cars are recorded at the Department of Motor
Vehicles, and house titles are recorded in city or county
courthouses. Technologically, this could move to a blockchain.
NFTs also are becoming popular for entertainment experiences.
For example, sports teams offer NFTs in which the buyer gets a
digital asset (perhaps a limited-edition digital depiction of a
championship ring) plus real-world experiences, such as special
seats at a game or interactions with players.
Eventually, NFTs would be used for commonplace consumer ticketing.
Perhaps you'll buy an NFT for your ticket to Disney World. The NFT
might contain digital art as a memento of your visit and serve as
your ticket.
It might come with extras such as park access before or after
regular hours or character meetups. You might buy and trade such
NFTs in a marketplace. Disney might take a cut of all resales,
because NFT technology enables this.
What will your experience as an everyday NFT user be like? Expect
to deal with anti-money-laundering laws and, sometimes, securities
laws.
Concerning money laundering, the law requires banks and investment
houses to watch for transactions that might be the proceeds of
criminal activity.
These laws eventually will apply to cryptocurrency transactions.
When a transaction is above $10,000, a financial institution has an
obligation under "Know Your Customer" laws to gather the customer's
name, address, Social Security number, and a copy of a driver's
license or other government ID.
It is illegal to structure a transaction to avoid such reporting.
Financial institutions must report suspicious activity to the
government.
Eventually, NFT and other cryptocurrency transactions will be
subject to such rules, just like when you make a big deposit or
withdrawal at a bank.
Then there are securities regulations. Under the law, something is
a security if it is an investment in a common enterprise where
future value is determined by a promoter or third party. That's why
a stock is a security. You buy a stock hoping it will go up in
value because of the business efforts of the company.
Securities laws might cover the marketplaces for NFTs, and perhaps
even some individual NFTs depending on how they are structured and
promoted.
For example, Dapper Labs, the company offering NBA Top Shot, is
being sued in a class action by people claiming it's selling
securities because of how Dapper Labs operates its resale
marketplace and promotes the value of its NFTs.
What will securities regulation of NFTs mean for you, the consumer?
It will be the same thing you encounter today as an investor.
Securities offerings must be registered with the government and are
tightly regulated. Securities law requires extensive risk
disclosures to prospective purchasers.
There will be certain risky NFT-based assets that only certain
qualified investors may buy.
The law will prohibit ownership of certain kinds of price-volatile
NFT-based assets in 401(k) and other retirement accounts.
Eventually, NFTs will take over much of your life credentials,
transactions and ticketing.
It will be a digital Brave New World. [GN]
DELIVER MY MEDS: Simai Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deliver My Meds
Corp., et al. The case is styled as Dr. David Simai, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Deliver My
Meds Corp. doing business as: Deliver My Meds Pharmacy, John Does
1-10, Case No. 2:21-cv-04172 (E.D.N.Y., July 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Deliver My Meds Corp -- https://delivermymeds.com/ -- is a
Community/Retail Pharmacy in Hauppauge, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Phone: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
DELTA AIR: Gurzenski Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ZACHARY GURZENSKI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV19287, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on July 22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-05959 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to indemnify employees for necessary
expenditures incurred in discharge of duties, failure to pay all
wages due to discharged and quitting employees, and unfair and
unlawful business practices.
Delta Air Lines, Inc. is an airline company, headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Carrie S. Gonell, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
Telephone: (714) 830-0600
Facsimile: (714) 830-0700
E-mail: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com
- and –
Andrew P. Frederick, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: (650) 843-4000
Facsimile: (650) 843-4001
E-mail: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com
- and –
Nicole L. Antonopoulos, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Telephone: (415) 442-1000
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
E-mail: nicole.antonopoulos@morganlewis.com
DIDI GLOBAL: Faces Chopra Suit Over 16% Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
JATIN CHOPRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIDI GLOBAL INC. F/K/A XIAOJU KUAIZHI INC.;
WILL WEI CHENG; ALAN YUE ZHUO; JEAN QING LIU; STEPHEN JINGSHI ZHU;
ZHIYI CHEN; MARTIN CHI PING LAU; KENTARO MATSUI; ADRIA PERICA;
DANIEL YONG ZHANG; GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C.; MORGAN STANLEY &
CO. LLC; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; BOFA SECURITIES; INC.;
BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; CHINA RENAISSANCE SECURITIES (HONG KONG)
LIMITED; CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION HONG KONG
SECURITIES LIMITED; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; GUOTAI JUNAN
SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LIMITED; HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC.; UBS
SECURITIES LLC; BOCI ASIA LIMITED; BOCOM INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES
LIMITED; CCB INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL LIMITED; CLSA LIMITED; CMB
INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL LIMITED; FUTU INC.; ICBC INTERNATIONAL
SECURITIES LIMITED; MIZUHO SECURITIES USA LLC; and TIGER BROKERS
(NZ) LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05973 (S.D.N.Y., July
12, 2021) is a securities class action brought by the Plaintiff
under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") on behalf
of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired DiDi:
(a) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or "shares") pursuant and
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with the Company's June 2021 initial public offering ("IPO" or the
"Offering"); and/or (b) purchased DiDi securities between June 30,
2021 and July 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period")
According to the complaint, on June 10, 2021, DiDi (then named
Xiaoju Kuaizhi Inc.) filed a Registration Statement on Form F-1
with the SEC to register its Class A ordinary shares, which,
collectively with subsequently filed amendments on Forms F-1/A and
F-1MEF, a Registration on Form F-6 and a June 30, 2021 prospectus
on Form 424B4 (the "Prospectus"), forms part of the Registration
Statement for the Company's IPO.
In the IPO and pursuant to the Registration Statement, including
the Prospectus, the Company sold approximately 316,800,000 shares
at a price of $14.00 per share, not including the underwriters'
option to sell an additional 47,520,000 ADSs.
On July 2, 2021, multiple news outlets reported that the Cyberspace
Administration of China ("CAC") had posted an announcement that the
CAC had launched an investigation into DiDi to protect national
security and the public interest. Also on July 2, 2021, DiDi issued
a press release entitled "DiDi announces CyberSecurity Review in
China," confirming that the Company was under investigation and
stating that "pursuant to the announcement posted by the PRC's
Cyberspace Administration Office on July 2, 2021, DiDi is subject
to cybersecurity review by the authority." The Company's press
release also states "[d]uring the review, DiDi is required to
suspend new user registration in China," says the suit.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.87 per share, or
approximately 5.3%, to close at $15.53 per share on July 2, 2021,
on unusually heavy trading volume.
On July 5, 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that "[w]eeks
before Didi Global, Inc. went public in the U.S., China's
cybersecurity watchdog suggested the Chinese ride-hailing giant
delay its initial public offering and urged it to conduct a
thorough self-examination of its network security, according to
people with knowledge of the matter." On this news, the Company's
share price fell $3.04 per share, or 19.6%, to close at $12.49 per
share on July 6, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
On July 9, 2021, DiDi shares closed at $12.03 per share, a decline
of over 16% from the $14 per share IPO price.
DIDI GLOBAL INC. provides mobility solutions, cloud computing, and
other application based services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
Pamela A. Mayer, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 Third Avenue, 14 th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 687-1980
Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
ffox@kaplanfox.com
pmayer@kaplanfox.com
DIDI GLOBAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of September 7 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on July 26
disclosed that securities fraud class action lawsuits have been
filed in both the United States District Courts for the Southern
District of New York and the Central District of California against
DiDi Global Inc. (NYSE: DIDI) ("DiDi") on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired DiDi: (a) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs")
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with DiDi's June 2021 initial public offering ("IPO");
and/or (b) securities between June 30, 2021 and July 2, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired DiDi ADSs
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the IPO and/or DiDi securities during the Class
Period may, no later than September 7, 2021, seek to be appointed
as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional
information or to learn how to participate in this litigation
please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq.
(484) 270-1453; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/didi-global-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=didi
DiDi is a mobility technology platform, providing ride hailing and
other services in the People's Republic of China ("PRC"), Brazil,
Mexico, and internationally. It offers ride hailing, taxi hailing,
chauffeur, hitch, and other forms of shared mobility services, as
well as enterprise business ride solutions; auto solutions
comprising leasing, refueling, and maintenance and repair services;
electric vehicle leasing services; bike and e-bike sharing,
intra-city freight, food delivery, and financial services. DiDi was
formerly known as Xiaoju Kuaizhi Inc. and changed its name to DiDi
Global Inc. in June 2021. DiDi is often called "the Uber of
China."
On June 30, 2021, DiDi filed its prospectus on a Form 424B4, which
forms part of the Registration Statement. In the IPO, DiDi sold
approximately 316,800,000 shares at a price of $14.00 per share.
Four ADSs represent one Class A ordinary share.
The Registration Statement emphasized that DiDi purportedly
"follow[ed] strict procedures in collecting, transmitting, storing
and using user data pursuant to [its] data security and privacy
policies." In fact, the Registration Statement claimed that DiDi
"collect[s] personal information and other data from [its] users
and use such data in the course of [its] operations only with their
prior consent."
The truth began to emerge on July 2, 2021 when the Cyberspace
Administration of China ("CAC") stated that it had launched an
investigation into DiDi to protect national security and the public
interest. Following this news, DiDi's share price fell $0.87, or
approximately 5.3%, to close at $15.53 per share on July 2, 2021.
After the Class Period, on Sunday, July 4, 2021, DiDi reported that
the CAC ordered smartphone app stores to stop offering the "DiDi
Chuxing" app because it "collect[ed] personal information in
violation of relevant PRC laws and regulations." DiDi was ordered
to make changes to comply with Chinese data protection rules to
"ensure the safety of the personal information of users." On July
5, 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that the CAC had asked
DiDi as early as three months prior to the IPO to postpone the
offering because of national security concerns and to "conduct a
thorough self-examination of its network security." Following this
news, DiDi's share price fell $3.04 per share, or 19.6%, to close
at $12.49 per share on July 6, 2021.
The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was
materially false and misleading and omitted to state that: (1)
DiDi's apps did not comply with applicable laws and regulations
governing privacy protection and the collection of personal
information; (2) as a result, DiDi was reasonably likely to incur
scrutiny from the CAC; (3) the CAC had warned DiDi to delay its IPO
to conduct a self-examination of its network security; (4) as a
result of the foregoing, DiDi's apps were reasonably likely to be
taken down from app stores in PRC, which would have an adverse
effect on its financial results and operations; and (5) as a result
of the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about DiDi's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
DiDi investors may, no later than September 7, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]
DIRECT RECOVERY: Andrews Sues Over Unsolicited Messages and Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES ANDREWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIRECT RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC; DOES 1-100,
and EACH OF THEM, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-01219 (C.D. Cal.,
July 22, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged negligent and willful violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received pre-recorded
messages from the Defendant on his cellular telephone number ending
in -3537 beginning in and around December 4, 2020. The Defendant
allegedly used an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) or an
"artificial or prerecorded voice" in an attempt to collect and
alleged outstanding debt of a certain Carol Garcia, who is not
known to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant
did not obtain his "prior express consent" to receive calls using
an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular
telephone number, which he had for the last 15 years.
Moreover, despite the Plaintiff's request that the Defendant stop
calling him, the Defendant called the Plaintiff from the caller ID
number (323) 230-7670 and left a call back number of (888)
603-0249. The Plaintiff was harmed by the Defendant's unsolicited
pre-recorded messages and calls because it caused him to incur
certain charges or reduced telephone time for which he had
previously paid, and it invaded his privacy, asserts the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking statutory damages and
treble damages for himself and other similarly situated
individuals, as well as an injunctive relief prohibiting the
Defendant's unlawful conduct in the future, and other relief as the
Court deems just ad proper.
Direct Recovery Services, LLC is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Removes Turizo TCPA Suit to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of Ryan Turizo, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOCTOR'S
ASSOCIATES LLC, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit
from Florida 17th Judicial Circuit Court (Case No. CACE-21-012011)
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
July 21, 2021. The clerk of court for the Southern District of
Florida assigned Case No. 0:21-cv-61493-RAR.
The case alleges the Defendant of violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text messages to the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals without
obtaining "prior express consent" to receive such text messages.
Doctor's Associates LLC operates a chain of quick service
restaurants. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Mark A. Salky, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
333 S.E. 2nd Ave., Suite 4400
Miami, FL 33131
Tel: (305) 579-0500
Fax: (305) 579-0717
E-mail: salkym@gtlaw.com
EGO INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages & OT, Jimenez Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA JIMENEZ, on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees,
Plaintiff v. EGO, INC., EMERGENCY GROUPS' OFFICE; BRAULT &
ASSOCIATES, INC., and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 21STCV26796 (Cal. Sup Ct., July 21, 2021) brings this complaint
against the Defendants seeking damages and restitution pursuant to
the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.
The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendants as an hourly-paid
and non-exempt employees, asserts these claims:
-- The Defendants failed to pay him and other similarly
situated aggrieved employees' wages for all hours worked at the
legal minimum wage, including overtime compensation at the
federally mandated overtime rate of pay;
-- The Defendants failed to provide them with legally required
meal periods;
-- The Defendants failed to provide complete and accurate wage
statements; and
-- The Defendants failed to pay them all wages due at the time
of termination/resignation.
Emergency Group's Office is an emergency physician billing company.
Brault & Associates, Inc. provides accounting, tax preparation,
bookkeeping, and payroll services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Melissa A. Huether, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Tel: (310) 432-0000
Fax: (310) 432-0001
E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
mhuether@lelawfirm.com
ENERGY FIRST: Field Labor Suit Moved From W.D. to S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOEL FIELD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ENERGY FIRST ENGINEERING & CONSULTING,
LLC, PLANNING THRU COMPLETION, LLC, and RUSCO OPERATING, LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00501, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on July 22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 4:21-cv-02375 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all
other similarly situated completions consultants, drilling
consultants, and project managers overtime pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Energy First Engineering & Consulting, LLC is a personnel-based
solutions provider for exploration and production companies,
headquartered in San Antonio, Texas.
Planning Thru Completion, LLC is a workforce management solution
provider based in Texas.
Rusco Operating, LLC is a freight shipping and trucking company
based in Austin, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
cfitz@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
EPICENTRO CAFE: Faces Tirado Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
NEREIDA TIRADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EPICENTRO CAFE, CORP. LOS REYES DEL
PROGRESO, INC., d/b/a EPICENTRO CAFE, ARMANDO VALDES, and MARISEL
VALDES, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-22621 (S.D. Fla., July 22,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff
and all other similarly situated waitresses overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a waitress at Epicentro
Cafe located at 4197 East 4th Avenue, Hialeah, Florida from 2016
through approximately May 17, 2021.
Epicentro Cafe, Corp. is an operator of a Cuban restaurant under
the name Epicentro Cafe located at 4197 East 4th Avenue, Hialeah,
Florida.
Los Reyes Del Progreso, Inc., is an operator of a Cuban restaurant
under the name Epicentro Cafe located at 4197 East 4th Avenue,
Hialeah, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
EQT CORP: Seeks Dismissal of $40MM Gas Royalty Owners' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that EQT Corp. urged the Fourth Circuit on July 20
to put the kibosh on oil and gas royalty owners' $40 million
trespassing suit against the company in state court arguing it was
"nonsensical" for a lower court to find a decade old settlement
doesn't bar the state court action. [GN]
ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 23
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT JOHNSON, RAUL
MARTINEZ, TERRANCE LOVETT, ROBERT PARSONS and JAVIER CUEVAS MAGANA,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
ESTENSON LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; HUB
TRUCKING GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; HUB GROUP, INC.,
DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS CALIFORNIA HUB GROUP; and DOES 1
through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-00118-JAK-SP (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order approving the
stipulation to continue the class certification filing deadline and
all deadlines related to class certification as follows:
Event Prior Date Continued
Date
-- Current Filing Deadline Oct. 25, 2021 Jan. 23, 2022
for Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification
-- Current Deadline to Nov. 23, 2021 Feb. 1, 2022
Opposition to the
Motion for Class
Certification
-- Current Deadline to Dec. 10, 2021 March 10, 2022
Reply in support of
Motion for Class
Certification
-- Current Hearing Jan. 10, 2022 April 11, 2022
Date for the
Motion for Class
Certification
Estenson Logistics, LLC provides logistics services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3l80OUH at no extra charge.[CC]
FACEBOOK INC: Keller Lenkner Firm Disqualified in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that the
three-year-old law firm Keller Lenkner aggressively styles itself
as a different kind of plaintiffs' shop. Just look at the firm's
website.
"Our attorneys trained at leading defense firms and commercial
litigation boutiques," the site boasts. "We offer comprehensive
counsel because our lawyers have experience on both sides of the
courtroom and the negotiating table."
If you browse through the bios of Keller Lenkner lawyers, you'll
find descriptions of their previous stints at those leading defense
firms, among them Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Kirkland & Ellis,
Williams & Connolly and Latham & Watkins. One Keller Lenkner
partner, Warren Postman, is even a former litigator for the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce -- not a credential you will find at many (or,
quite possibly, any) other plaintiffs firm.
The implication: Keller Lenkner's lawyers can match the best
lawyers on the other side because they've been there.
That positioning - accompanied, of course, by the 35-lawyer firm's
commendable litigation record, especially in the mass arbitration
niche it dominates - has generally served Keller Lenkner well.
But the business model is not without risk, as is manifestly
evident from an opinion issued on July 20 by U.S. District Judge
Lucy Koh of San Jose, California. Koh disqualified Keller Lenkner
from representing consumers in a prospective antitrust class action
against Facebook Inc, concluding that the firm violated California
rules of professional conduct because it did not take immediate
steps to set up a screen between its Facebook investigation and a
mid-level associate who worked more than 800 hours on Facebook's
antitrust defense in his previous job at Kellogg, Hansen, Todd,
Figel & Frederick.
The former Kellogg Hansen lawyer, Albert Pak, was a fourth-year
associate when he joined Keller Lenkner in June 2020. Pak
immediately informed Keller Lenkner partner Postman that he had
been part of the Kellogg Hansen team representing Facebook in an
antitrust investigation by the Federal Trade Commission.
At the time of Pak's hiring, according to Keller Lenkner, the firm
"had no concrete plans to bring a lawsuit against Facebook." Later
in the summer of 2020, as Keller Lenkner began actively
contemplating a consumer class action against Facebook, the firm
said, Postman told the team analyzing the potential antitrust case
not to talk to Pak about Facebook. In November, when Keller Lenkner
neared an agreement to team up with Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan to sue Facebook, the firm adopted an elaborate formal
screening process to wall off Pak.
Keller Lenkner and Quinn jointly filed a consumer class action
complaint against Facebook on Dec. 3, offering allegations similar
to those asserted by the FTC in a complaint filed several days
after the class action. Keller Lenkner did not formally notify
Facebook until March 19 about Pak's prior representation of the
company as a Kellogg Hansen associate.
By then, as Facebook's lawyers at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr pointed out in the company's disqualification motion, their
client had already discovered Pak's prior work for Facebook. In
fact, Wilmer told Koh about the potential Pak conflict at a March
18 hearing on the appointment of lead counsel in the consumer
case.
Facebook did not demand Keller Lenkner's disqualification at that
hearing, calling instead for more information about the firm's
screening process. But Keller Lenkner's answers to Facebook's
follow-up questions, the company said in its May 7 disqualification
motion, showed that the plaintiffs' firm did not set up the screen
until four months after Pak's arrival from Kellogg Huber, even
though, in Facebook's account, "Keller Lenkner was in the midst of
its own antitrust investigation" by the time Pak joined the firm.
There's considerable back-and-forth in the briefing about the
breadth and depth of Keller Lenkner's Facebook investigation before
November 2020. Keller Lenkner, which told me in an email statement
that it complied with its ethical obligations "in all respects,"
said in its brief opposing disqualification that it only launched
"serious" analysis after Congressional hearings in late July.
The two sides' briefs debated the precise trigger for an ethics
screen under California's rules of professional conduct. Keller
Lenkner argued that it established the screen as soon as the firm
believed it was likely to be involved in a case against Facebook.
Facebook, meanwhile, pointed to Keller Lenkner partner Postman's
own statements at the lead counsel hearing, in which Postman
described a "substantial pre-filing investigation" that "commenced
. . . two years ago."
The judge agreed with Facebook in the July 20 opinion. (Koh had
ordered Keller Lenkner's disqualification, in advance of a July 15
hearing on Facebook's motion to dismiss the consumer class action.
The July 20 opinion explained her previous order.)
Keller Lenkner had depicted Pak as a young associate with little
substantive responsibility at Kellogg Huber. Koh, however, said he
"substantially participated" in Facebook's defense: He drafted
memos, assisted with a witness interview and was in regular contact
with the company's in-house lawyers and Kellogg partners leading
the case. Given Pak's relevant experience and Keller Lenkner's
failure to screen him off immediately, Koh said, the firm had to be
disqualified.
Koh's Facebook ruling marks the second time Keller Lenkner has been
disqualified because of a lateral hire's previous defense work. In
2019, as I reported at the time, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of
San Francisco granted Uber's motion to disqualify Keller Lenkner
from representing limousine companies suing for antitrust
violations, citing Keller partner Postman's previous work alongside
Uber for the U.S. Chamber.
Facebook prominently mentioned Chen's decision in its
disqualification motion before Koh. You can be sure that other
defense lawyers -- who have been attacking Keller Lenkner's tactics
since the firm opened its doors -- will now cite Koh's Facebook
opinion as well.
Keller Lenkner said in an email that such attacks prove its model
is working. "The defense bar's disqualification tactics are an
unfortunate consequence of our having hired some of their most
talented lawyers to represent plaintiffs," the firm said.
The firm also said it "respectfully" disagrees with Koh's decision:
"Overly restrictive rules and fuzzy disqualification standards
hamper lawyer mobility, which ultimately harms our profession."
[GN]
FACEBOOK INC: Trump's Class Action Over Censorship Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Susan Shelley, writing for Pasadena Star News, reports that last
month, Facebook's "oversight board" announced that the company
would bar former president Donald Trump from the social media
network's platforms for two years, which by total coincidence is
exactly one congressional election cycle.
At that point, the board said, it will consider whether the nation
has the same levels of "violence, restrictions on peaceful
assembly, and other markers of civil unrest." The board's
evaluation of American society's stability will determine whether
the 45th president of the United States will be allowed to post on
Facebook and Instagram.
This recalls a joke that circulated during the 2008 financial
crisis: "If you owe the bank $100 and you can't pay, you're in
trouble. If you owe the bank $100 million and you can't pay, the
bank is in trouble."
Seventy-four million Americans voted for Donald Trump's
re-election, including 6 million people in California. So it's
possible that Trump can cause more trouble for Facebook than
Facebook can cause for Trump. Place your bets.
The former president is suing Facebook, along with Twitter and
Google (owner of YouTube). At a press conference, Trump said the
purpose of the lawsuits is to seek an "immediate halt to social
media companies' illegal, shameful censorship of the American
people." He's seeking class action status for the lawsuits, which
were filed in federal court in Florida.
Whether the censorship is illegal remains to be seen. Florida
Governor Ron DeSantis signed a law that allowed the state to fine
large social media companies for removing the accounts of
candidates, but enforcement of the law was blocked when U.S.
District Judge Robert Hinkle agreed with the tech companies that a
law that "compels providers to host speech that violates their
standards" likely violates the First Amendment.
Trump's lawsuit takes the opposite view, arguing that the tech
companies are coordinating with the federal government to choose
individuals and messages to censor, and that it's a violation of
the First Amendment for the government to censor speech by acting
through a third party.
This argument is only one of three legal battles involving big
tech. There's also a heavyweight fight over Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act and another one over the federal
antitrust laws.
The Communications Decency Act was passed in 1996. Section 230
states, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service
shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information
provided by another content provider." This protects online
companies -- from the behemoth social media platforms to the
smallest bloggers -- from being held liable for the words, pictures
or videos posted by users or commenters, with exceptions for
certain criminal actions or copyright claims.
According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, these protections
are "unique to U.S. law" and part of the reason that "most
prominent online services are based in the United States."
Many politicians, including Donald Trump and Joe Biden, have been
critical of Section 230. The tech companies have a vulnerability
here, and the Trump lawsuit could be targeting it. If the lawsuit
reaches the discovery phase, it's always possible that revelations
might cause an uproar and affect future legislation, to the tech
companies' detriment.
Another vulnerability for the tech giants is antitrust, a set of
ambiguous laws that prohibit unfair competition, as defined at any
given moment. Microsoft was pursued to the ends of the earth for
giving away a free internet browser in 2001. In January, the
startup social media app Parler was de-platformed by Apple, Google
and Amazon. Does that violate antitrust laws?
If not yet, maybe soon. The House Judiciary Committee recently
passed six antitrust bills that would prevent big tech companies
from using their platforms to discriminate against rivals. The
legislation also would bar the largest tech firms from buying
startup companies that could become competitors, and from favoring
their own products instead of offering competitors a level playing
field.
For tech companies, the First Amendment is the least of their
problems.
For the American public, however, there's reason to be concerned
when the White House press secretary complains to reporters, as Jen
Psaki did recently, that Facebook isn't moving quickly enough to
remove people and posts that the White House wants off the
internet.
Trump's lawsuit against Facebook argues that the tech companies'
censorship has resulted in "a chilling effect cast over our
nation's pressing political, medical, social, and cultural
discussions."
Not for the first time, Trump is saying what a lot of people are
thinking. [GN]
FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Class Action Over BIPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Keith S. Anderson, Esq., and Anne R. Yuengert, Esq., of Bradley
Arant Boult Cummings LLP, in an article for The National Law
Review, report that does your company use fingerprinting or some
facial recognition scanner as part of its clock-in, clock-out
process? If your company has facilities or even some contacts with
Illinois (and maybe other states in the future) you should pay heed
to Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) that is the
subject of a new class action and has been the source of many prior
lawsuits.
Illinois' Biometric Privacy Law
The BIPA states that no private entity may "collect, capture,
purchase, receive through trade, or otherwise obtain a person's or
a customer's biometric identifier or biometric information" unless
it first:
Informs the subject in writing that a biometric identifier or
biometric information is being collected or stored;
Informs the subject in writing of the specific purpose and length
of term for which a biometric identifier or biometric information
is being collected, stored, and used; and
Receives a written release executed by the subject or the subject's
representative.
The BIPA also prohibits businesses from disclosing a person's
biometric information without first obtaining consent and requires
businesses to develop and comply with a publicly available written
policy for retention and destruction of the information. The BIPA
is recognized as one of the strongest state laws protecting
individuals' biometric data and expressly excludes photographs and
information from a patient in a health care setting from the
definition of biometric identifier.
Family Dollar Class Action
A putative class of employees recently filed a complaint against
Family Dollar and Dollar Tree Inc. in Cook County, Illinois
alleging violation of the BIPA. Herron, the representative
plaintiff, worked as an hourly employee at Family Dollar in 2017
and had to provide finger scans to clock in and out. The complaint
alleges that Family Dollar did not inform the employees in writing
of the purpose or obtain consent.
Other Lawsuits and Developments
Lawsuits alleging employer violations of BIPA have become
commonplace in Illinois in recent years. Walmart recently settled a
BIPA employee class action for $10 million. A case currently before
the Illinois Supreme Court could decide whether the exclusive
remedies under the workers' compensation law preclude claims for
statutory damages under the BIPA where an employee alleges a
violation of statutory rights. A defense victory could have a
considerable effect on the pending class actions, including the
Herron matter.
BIPA critics suggest the law has been abused and leads to frivolous
lawsuits. A bill introduced in the Illinois General Assembly would
revise and limit the BIPA's reach.
As of now, the BIPA provides for statutory damages of $5,000 for
each willful and/or reckless violation, or $1,000 for each
negligent violation. According to the Illinois Supreme Court, an
individual need not allege or prove an actual injury to recover
damages; the mere violation will create statutory liability.
While other states have regulated the use of biometric information,
Illinois is currently the only one that creates a private right of
action. A National Biometric Information Privacy Act of 2020 was
introduced in August 2020 and is pending in the Senate now. As
drafted, it includes a private right of action.
If You Are in Illinois or Have Illinois Contacts You should . . .
If you have facilities in Illinois or some contact with Illinois,
you should examine and comply with the BIPA's requirements. Any
clock in, clock out procedures should not involve biometric
information unless you have met and documented the consent
requirements. Lawsuits alleging BIPA violations have been filed
outside of Illinois if a company has sufficient contacts, so you
need to be careful. State biometric protection laws may become more
common, so carefully examine your practices if fingerprint scanners
or any type of biometric recognition technology is part of your
operations. [GN]
FCA US: Faces Class Action Over Chrysler Sliding Door Problems
--------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Chrysler
sliding door problems have caused a lawsuit to be filed by the
owner of a Dodge Grand Caravan who alleges the sliding doors have
lock and latch problems.
The Chrysler class action lawsuit was filed a few weeks after the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) opened an
investigation into sliding door problems in 2016 Dodge Grand
Caravan and 2016 Chrysler Town & Country minivans.
Fiat Chrysler told NHTSA there was a problem with the lock actuator
that could cause the sliding door locks to fail, or the sliding
doors could make a buzzing sound when in use.
The lawsuit includes 2013-2020 Dodge Grand Caravan and 2013-2016
Chrysler Town & Country minivans allegedly equipped with defective
door latch systems. The plaintiff who sued alleges the sliding
doors refuse to lock or the doors can open even if they are
locked.
Maine plaintiff Lisa White purchased a new 2018 Dodge Grand Caravan
in September 2018, a minivan which she still owns. In March 2021,
the passenger side door allegedly stopped locking and a dealership
technician charged her $630.80 to repair the sliding door problem.
White says not only is she out the money she spent, but she has
suffered a loss associated with "future attempted repairs and [the]
diminished value of her vehicle."
The automaker allegedly has "longstanding knowledge" of Dodge Grand
Caravan and Chrysler Town & Country sliding door problems but has
ignored the alleged issues.
Chrysler Sliding Door Problems Lead to Owner Complaints
According to the class action lawsuit, the defect "appears to arise
from defective actuators preventing the locks from functioning --
causes the Class Vehicles' door sensors to fail. Once these sensors
cease operating properly, the Class Vehicles' door latching
mechanism(s) and door locking system(s) fail to function as
intended and expected."
Minivan owners allegedly must pay costly repairs because the door
latch assemblies must be replaced, and the repairs allegedly do
nothing to fix the sliding door problems.
The affected Chrysler sliding door latches and actuators include
these part numbers:
Right Door Latch 68030378
Left Door Latch 68030379
Right Door Actuator 5020678
Left Door Actuator 5020679
Despite what a driver does, the sliding door latching systems
allegedly fail and won't lock regardless if the minivan is running
or shut off. Other times the sliding doors allegedly won't open
which causes occupants to climb through the front doors to exit the
minivans.
Although the NHTSA investigation involves 2016 Dodge Grand Caravan
and 2016 Chrysler Town & Country minivans, the class action lawsuit
includes more model years because of the number of complaints.
The Chrysler sliding door lawsuit says minivan owners have
complained about the problems since 2014, and those complaints
allegedly indicate 2011-2018 minivans are affected by the sliding
door issues.
The Chrysler sliding door problems can cause serious dangers to
occupants, especially children near the doors if they suddenly open
while the minivans are moving. And the class action alleges if the
problem continues with the minivan turned off, the battery can
drain and strand the occupants.
The Chrysler sliding door lock actuator lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan: Lisa
White, v. FCA US.
The plaintiff is represented by the Miller Law Firm, P.C., and
McCune Wright Arevalo LLP. [GN]
FOOD LION: Botterill Sues Over Misleading Coffee Product Labels
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BOTTERILL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOOD LION, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01835-SAG (D. Md., July 22, 2021) alleges the Defendant
of violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, breaches of
express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability and Magnuson
Moss Warranty Act, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust
enrichment.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant manufactures, markets,
labels, and sells instant coffee under its Food Lion brand in
containers of 7 ounces claiming that it "Makes Up to 120 Cups" of
coffee, which the Plaintiff has bought and relied on the
representations. However, the Defendant's labeling is allegedly
false, deceptive, and misleading as it was determined by
independent laboratory analysis that the Product makes less than
109 cups, and consumer get approximately 10% fewer cups of coffee
than the 120 promised on the label. The Plaintiff would not have
purchased the Product if he knew the representations were false and
misleading.
Food Lion, LLC owns and operates department stores. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
Tel: (516) 268-7080
Fax: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
GEICO CASUALTY: Deadline for Class Cert. Filing Set for August 13
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET DAVIS, et al., v.
GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02477-EAS-EPD
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered an
amended order:
-- Motion for class certification August 13, 2021
and certification expert
disclosures:
-- Plaintiffs' class certification September 8, 2021
expert depositions:
-- Opposition to class certification September 27, 2021
and rebuttal expert disclosures:
-- Defendants' class certification October 26, 2021
expert depositions:
-- Plaintiffs' class certification November 5, 2021
reply:
-- All discovery completed: January 11, 2022
-- Dispositive motions: December 10, 2021
-- Responses to dispositive motions: January 14, 2022
-- Replies to dispositive motions: February 11, 2022
-- Primary expert reports produced: November 17, 2021
-- Rebuttal expert reports produced: December 17, 2021
GEICO Company operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3l1UsX1 at no extra charge.[CC]
GENERAL DYNAMICS: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 13
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOLLIE PIRON, STEPHANIE
MERINO, BOUNSOU THAMVANTHONGKHAM and CHRISTINA BEECROFT, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL
DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00709-REP
(E.D. Va.), the Parties ask the Court for entry of scheduling order
for class certifcation and class discovery as follows:
-- Deadline to serve first written July 22, 2021
class certification discovery
requests and initial disclosures.
-- Deadline to complete written November 12, 2021
class certification discovery,
including document production.
-- Deadline to complete depositions October 13, 2021
pertaining to class certification.
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs' Motion December 13, 2021
for Class Certification.
-- Deadline for Defendant's Response January 25, 2022
Brief (class certification).
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply Brief February 8, 2022
(class certification).
General Dynamics is a global aerospace and defense company.
The Parties motion dated July 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ybdvSv at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kasey L. Hoare, Esq.
Robert H. Chappell, Esq.
Jennifer J. West, Esq.
Edward E. Bagnell, Jr., Esq.
Kasey L. Hoare, Esq.
SPOTTS FAIN PC
411 East Franklin Street, Suite 600
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 697-2000
Facsimile: (804) 697-2100
E-mail: rchappell@spottsfain.com
jwest@spottsfain.com
ebagnell@spottsfain.com
The Attorneys for Defendant General Dynamics Information
Technology, Inc., are:
Neil H. MacBride, Esq.
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
901 15th Street, N.W., Suite 1200
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 962-7000
E-mail: neil.macbride@davispolk.com
- and -
Paul S. Mishkin, Esq.
Craig J. Bergman, Esq.
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
450 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Telephone: (212) 450-4000
E-mail: paul.mishkin@davispolk.com
craig.bergman@davispolk.com
GENERAL MOTORS: 5.3L Vortec V8 Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
Sam McEachern, writing for GM Authority, reports that a
class-action lawsuit filed against General Motors in Oregon has
been allowed to continue through the courts after GM's motion to
dismiss the claim was denied.
The American automaker had a class-action lawsuit filed against it
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland
Division in February of 2020. The plaintiff in the suit, William
Martell, alleges the 5.3L LC9 V8 engine in the 2011 Chevy Silverado
pickup he purchased new in 2011 has various issues related to
excessive oil consumption. The suit is nearly identical to numerous
other class action proceedings filed against GM in recent years,
which allege certain engines in the 5.3L Vortec V8 engine family
have several issues that cause them to burn oil at a higher than
usual rate.
According to Car Complaints, Judge Michael H. Simon denied GM's
request to have the Oregon class action suit thrown out. GM had
attempted to a warranty breach claim dismissed as the suit
apparently did not mention any engine defects that would be covered
by the automaker's express warranty. The automaker's express
warranty coverage only applies to manufacturing defects, and GM has
in the past successfully argued that the oil consumption defect is
related to the Vortec V8 engine's design and not a manufacturing
defect or faulty component. The judge denied GM's claim this time
after scrutinizing the language in its implied warranty for "about
10 pages," Car Complaints reports.
The judge also dismissed other motions filed by GM to have the suit
thrown out, which were related to a claim of fraudulent concealment
and a claim under the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act.
GM has had several class-action lawsuits filed against it over
alleged oil consumption issues with the Vortec V8 engine. The
majority of these suits have been dismissed by judges, including a
nationwide class action suit filed in Ohio in 2019. [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Vortec Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a GM
class action lawsuit over Vortec engines will continue for Oregon
consumers who allege the Generation IV 5.3-liter V8 Vortec 5300 LC9
engines guzzle oil.
The Oregon plaintiff who sued, William Martell, purchased a 2011
Chevrolet Silverado in 2011, but in 2015 the truck allegedly
suffered from Vortec engine problems caused by excessive oil
consumption.
The plaintiff says he took the truck to a dealership several times
in 2015 and 2016 but the dealer said the oil consumption level was
normal.
The Silverado owner then filed his class action lawsuit in February
2020.
According to the GM class action lawsuit, the alleged oil
consumption problem is caused by the piston rings which fail to
keep oil in the crankcase.
The class action also alleges multiple systems are defective in the
following vehicles, including the active fuel management system,
the positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) system, the oil life
monitoring system and the oil pressure gauge indicator.
2010-2014 Chevrolet Avalanche
2010-2013 Chevrolet Silverado
2010-2014 Chevrolet Suburban
2010-2014 Chevrolet Tahoe
2010-2013 GMC Sierra
2010-2014 GMC Yukon
2010-2014 GMC Yukon XL
GM Class Action Lawsuit Continues For Oregon Customers
General Motors filed a motion to dismiss the Oregon GM class action
lawsuit by alleging the plaintiff failed in his claims, but Judge
Michael H. Simon denied GM's motion.
A large part of the dismissal order concerns GM's argument the
plaintiff does not allege a design defect covered under the express
warranty.
GM argues the breach of express warranty claim cannot proceed
because GM's five-year warranty applies only to manufacturing
defects, not the design defect alleged by the plaintiff.
GM references the class action where it says "the design flaws
caus[ed] excessive oil consumption in the Class Vehicles," and the
"Oil Consumption Defect is a uniform design defect that is related
to materials."
But the meaning of the warranty is scrutinized for about 10 pages
in the order from the judge, all due to a comma and hyphen included
in the text of the warranty.
By the end of the debate the judge denied GM's motion to dismiss
the breach of warranty claim.
GM also lost its bid to dismiss a claim of fraudulent concealment
and a claim under the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act.
The GM class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Oregon, Portland Division: Martell, et al., v.
General Motors LLC.
The plaintiff is represented by Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC,
DiCello Levitt Gutzler, and Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis &
Miles, P.C. [GN]
GG33 CORP: Faces Lopez Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA SAAVEDRA LOPEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GG33 CORP. d/b/a LEFKOS PYRGOS
CAFE and GEORGIA PETERS, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-04094
(E.D.N.Y., July 21, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought
against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or about 2006
until in or about June 2021 to perform non-exempt duties for the
Defendants including serving food.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated non-exempt employees regularly worked more than 40 hours
in a workweek. However, the Defendant did not pay them overtime
premium at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate
for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Additionally, the
Defendant willfully disregarded and purposefully evaded record
keeping requirements of the FLSA by failing to maintain accurate
records of the hours worked by and wages paid to the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated non-exempt employees. Moreover, the
Defendant failed to provide them with accurate wage statement with
every payment of wages and wage notice upon hire, and failed to
post notices explaining wage and hour requirements in conspicuous
places as required by the FLSA and NYLL, the suit says.
GG33 Corp. operates a restaurant and cafe in the County of Queens
and State of New York. Goergia Peters is the owner and/or officer
of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
825 Veterans Highway, Suite B
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Tel: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Macormic Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Matthew Macormic, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Glaxosmithkline Consumer Health,
Inc., Case No. 21ph-CV-00182 was removed from the Missouri State
Court, Phelps County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on July 26, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00917-HEA to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability.
Glaxosmithkline Consumer Health, Inc. --
https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/home/ is a leading consumer healthcare
company and develop and market some of the world's best loved
brands and products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David L. Steelman, Esq.
STEELMAN, GAUNT & HORSEFIELD
901 Pine Street, Ste. 110
P.O. Box 1257
Rolla, MO 65401
Phone: (573) 341-8336
Fax: (573) 341-8548
Email: dsteelman@steelmanandgaunt.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Elizabeth Brooke Herrington
MORGAN LEWIS LLP - Chicago
110 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 324-1445
Fax: (312) 324-1001
Email: beth.herrington@morganlewis.com
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Rieske Sues Over Unpaid OT for Adjusters
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER RIESKE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE
COMPANY INC. d/b/a GEICO, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-04122
(E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant
for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated auto claim and damage adjusters overtime pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an auto claim and/or
damage adjuster in New York since October 2013.
Government Employees Insurance Company Inc., doing business as
GEICO, is an American auto insurance company with headquarters in
Chevy Chase, Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
800 3rd Avenue, Suite 2800
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (800) 616-4000
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com
- and –
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Tamra Givens, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
981 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
tgivens@shavitzlaw.com
- and –
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
David C. Leimbach, Esq.
Brett D. Watson, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com
- and –
Paige T. Bennett, Esq.
DANIELS & TREDENNICK PLLC
6363 Woodway Drive, Suite 700
Houston, TX 77057
Telephone: (713) 917-0024
Facsimile: (713) 917-0026
E-mail: paige.bennett@dtlawyers.com
GUELPH DENTAL: Dental Care Negligence Class Action Certified
------------------------------------------------------------
GuelphToday reports that a judge has given permission for a
proposed lawsuit against a Guelph dental practice to be certified
as a class action lawsuit.
The lawsuit is in relation to a 2017 incident where patients of
Guelph Dental Associates were advised to get tested for HIV and
hepatitis.
In June, 2017, Guelph Dental Associates closed for several weeks
after Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health found several public
health infractions at the Eramosa Road location related to improper
sterilization and disinfection of medical devices.
Public Health sent out 3,600 letters to families that had patients
at the clinic over a 27-month period, telling them to get tested
for HIV and hepatitis, even though there was a "very low" risk of
infection.
When the clinic reopened they said they had taken several steps to
address the issue.
Kimberley Lowe, on behalf of her two daughters, is named as the
plaintiff in the action. She asked the court to certify the lawsuit
as a class action suit, which the judge did.
The plaintiffs move for certification is for "settlement purposes,"
said the written ruling.
Named as defendants are Dr. Meikle Dentistry Professional
Corporation, Dr. Katherine Zettle, Dr. Kanisha Campbell, Dr. Ladan
Mansouri and Dr. Andrew Meikle.
The action was started in July, 2017.
"The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants were negligent in
providing dental service at the dental clinic known as "Guelph
Dental Associates" and exposed their patients to certain
communicable diseases," says the ruling by superior court justice
Paul Perell.
The class action would be open to anyone that received dental care
and services at Guelph Dental Associates between Jan. 21, 2015 and
June 21, 2017. [GN]
HOME DEPOT: Seeks Denial of Carlson Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS CARLSON,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a foreign corporation; and THE HOME DEPOT,
INC., a foreign corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-01150-MJP (W.D.
Wash.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order denying the
Plaintiff Chris Carlson's request for class certification under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
The Defendants contend that the Plaintiff cannot carry his burden
to establish the predominance and superiority elements of Rule
23(b)(3) as to any of his claims, and class certification must
therefore be denied.
The Plaintiff, a former Home Depot employee, alleges that Home
Depot failed to "ensure" that employees received meal periods and
rest breaks as purportedly required by Washington law.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of "current and former
employees who work or have worked as in-store supervisors,
specialists, and similar classifications" at Home Depot stores in
Washington since June 2017.
Home Depot is the largest home improvement retailer in the United
States, supplying tools, construction products, and services.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 16, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TFBN8b at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Defendants Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
and The Home Depot, Inc., are:
D. Michael Reilly, Esq.
Taylor Washburn, Esq.
David G. Hosenpud, Esq.
LANE POWELL PC
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200
P.O. Box 91302
Seattle, Washington 98111-9402
Telephone: 206.223.7000
E-mail: reillym@lanepowell.com
washburnt@lanepowell.com
hosenpudd@lanepowell.com
HOME MEDICAL: Faces Garcia Class Suit Over Data Breach in D.N.M.
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICKILEE M. GARCIA, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HOME MEDICAL EQUIPMENT SPECIALISTS, LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00682-LF-JFR (D.N.M., July 22, 2021) is a class action
suit against Home Medical Specialist to obtain damages, restitution
and injunctive relief for the Class arising out of the recent
targeted email phishing cyberattack and data breach on HME's
network that resulted in unauthorized access and exfiltration of
highly sensitive and personal resident and employee data (the "Data
Breach").
As a result of the alleged Data Breach, the Plaintiff and
approximately 153,013 Class Members suffered present injury and
damages in the form of identity theft and attempted unemployment
benefits fraud, the loss of the benefit of their bargain,
out-of-pocket expenses and the value of the time reasonably
incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the unauthorized
access, exfiltration, and subsequent criminal misuse of their
sensitive and highly personal information.
Information compromised in the Data Breach includes the patients'
and employees' full names, medical diagnosis or treatment
information, the Social Security number of Plaintiff and other
Class Members, driver's license numbers, credit card numbers,
account information, and usernames and passwords.
The healthcare-specific data compromised is protected health
information ("PHI") as defined by the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), and information such as
Plaintiff's Social Security number is deemed personally
identifiable information ("PII"), says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' Private Information that they collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had
been subject to the unauthorized access of a third party.
Plaintiff Garcia is currently a resident of the state of Tennessee
residing in the city of Mufreesboro. The Plaintiff Garcia was
employed by HME from March 2018 through July 2021. During the
summer of 2021, Plaintiff Garcia received notice from HME dated
June 2, 2021 that the Data Breach had occurred following a phishing
attack on HME's computer systems (specifically HME employee email
accounts).
HME is New Mexico's largest home owned medical equipment company,
providing medical equipment ranging from crutches to wheelchairs,
from nutrition to wound care, from oxygen to infusion pharmacy
services.
HME operates out of 13 different locations covering the State of
New Mexico (with one of its locations also located in El Paso,
Texas). HME contracts with every insurance plan in New Mexico, and
also serves Centennial Care members.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristina Martinez, Esq.
EGOLF + FERLIC +
MARTINEZ + HARWOOD, LLC
123 W. San Francisco St., Second Floor
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Telephone: (505) 986-9641
E-mail: KMartinez@EgolfLaw.com
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
David K. Lietz, Esq.
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 640-1160
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dlietz@masonllp.com
gklinger@masonllp.com
HYDRANT INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hydrant, Inc. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Hydrant, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04204 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hydrant -- https://www.drinkhydrant.com/ -- is a wellness brand
company providing a balanced mix of electrolytes, minerals, and
vitamins.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
HYUNDAI MOTOR: O'Riordan Sues Over Vehicles' Defective Wheels
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARY O'RIORDAN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a California corporation,
Case No. 2:21-cv-05970 (C.D. Cal., July 23, 2021) concerns
Hyundai's manufacturing and sale of vehicles that had severely
defective wheels.
Allegedly, the defect on the vehicles at issue caused the wheel
surface to delaminate and peel, resulting in an unsightly
appearance and affects vehicle value. Defendant has failed to
disclose that the defect existed at the time the vehicles were sold
and has since refused to repair the defective wheels, says the
suit.
Plaintiff Mary O'Riordan bring this Class Action Complaint against
Defendant, Hyundai Motor America on behalf of a class of other
individuals who purchased Hyundai's vehicles that had a serious
defect in the vehicle's wheels that resulted in unsightly
discoloration, delamination, and peeling of the wheel surface.
Despite knowledge of this defect, Defendant has allegedly failed to
acknowledge its existence and provide a remedy to its customers.
For her class action complaint.
Like the other members of the putative Class, Plaintiff purchased a
Hyundai vehicle with the wheel defect. After just three years of
ownership, Plaintiff observed significant damage to the wheels on
her vehicle as a result of the wheel defect and contacted one of
Defendant's dealerships to have the defect repaired.
However, consistent with Defendant's common practice for the
vehicles with the wheel defect at issue, Plaintiff was declined any
relief, even though Defendant was aware of the problem through
numerous other identical complaints by vehicle owners, added the
suit.
The Defendant's alleged conduct in manufacturing and selling
vehicles with defective wheels and refusing to repair the defect
when presented with the problem is deceptive, misleading, and in
violation of its own express warranty, and the Plaintiff and other
consumers have suffered injury-in-fact as a result of Defendant's
conduct.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Donald S. Burris, Esq.
BURRIS & SCHOENBERG, LLP
12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 504
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 442-5559
Facsimile: (310) 442-0353
E-mail: don@bslaw.net
- and -
Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Ex. 3
Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com
IKO MANUFACTURING: Kult Suit Removed from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS KULT and GREG MEYEROTT,
on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. IKO MANUFACTURING INC., IKO INDUSTRIES LTD,., IKO MIDWEST, INC.,
IKO INDUSTRIES, INC. and IKO PRODUCTION, INC. Case No. 20SL-CC05916
was removed from the Circuit Court of the Twenty-First Judicial
Circuit, St. Louis County, Missouri, to the United States District
Court for Eastern District of Missouri on July 14, 2021.
The Eastern District of Missouri Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:21-cv-00850-RLW to the proceeding.
On December 4, 2020, Plaintiffs Chris Kult and Greg Meyerott
commenced this action by filing a class action petition in the
Circuit Court for the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit, St. Louis
County, Missouri.
Plaintiff Chris Kult is a citizen of St. Louis County, Missouri.
Plaintiff Greg Meyerott is a citizen of St. Louis County,
Missouri.
Defendant IKO Manufacturing, Inc. was a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in Kankakee, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 678-1064
Facsimile: (314) 721-0905
E-mail; jrosemergy@careydanis.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel R. Campbell, Esq.
Christopher M. Murphy, Esq.
Samantha Fenton, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
444 West Lake Street
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 984-2167
Facsimile: (312) 984-7700
E-mail: dcampbell@mwe.com
cmurphy@mwe.com
sfenton@mwe.com
INVESTOPEDIA LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to Deaf, Winegard Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAY WINEGARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INVESTOPEDIA LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-03907-BMC (E.D.N.Y., July 12, 2021) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
Website, https://academy.investopedia.com/, is not fully or equally
accessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to deaf
and hard-of-hearing individuals.
Investopedia LLC was founded in 2014. The company's line of
business includes designing, developing, and producing prepackaged
computer software. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Segal, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL, P.C.
1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (516) 415-0100
Facsimile: (516) 706-6631
JAMES RIVER: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline for investors to file a
lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has
been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of James River Group Holdings, Ltd. ("James River" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: JRVR) from August 1, 2019 through May 6,
2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1934.
If you purchased James River securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit James River
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Rujul Patel toll free
at (877) 779-1414 or rpatel@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) James River had not adequately reserved for its Uber
policies; (2) James River was using an incorrect methodology for
setting reserves that materially understated its true exposure to
Uber claims; (3) as a result, the Company was forced to increase
its unfavorable reserves in subsequent quarters, even after
cancelling the Uber policies; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about James River's business, operations,
and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
On October 8, 2019, James River disclosed it had delivered a notice
of early cancellation of all policies issued to its largest
customer, Rasier LLC, a subsidiary of Uber. On this news, James
River's stock price fell $11.06 per share, or over 23% to close at
$37.88 per share on October 9, 2021. On May 5, 2021, the Company
announced its first quarter 2021 financial results, reporting $170
million of "unfavorable development in Commercial Auto, primarily
driven by a previously canceled account that has been in runoff
since 2019." On this news, James River's stock price fell over 26%
per share to close at $33.94 per share on
May 6, 2021.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 7, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased James River securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/jamesrivergroupholdingsltd-jrvr-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-411/apply/
or contact Rujul Patel toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
rpatel@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information:
Rujul Patel
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
rpatel@bernlieb.com [GN]
JK ENTERPRISE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Begley Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREL BEGLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JK ENTERPRISE INCORPORATED dba CABARET II;
JOSEPHINE JABRA KIRAZ; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01031-YY (D. Or., July 12, 2021) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Begley was employed by the Defendants as exotic dancer.
JK ENTERPRISE INCORPORATED owns and operates a strip Club named
Cabaret II. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
S. Amanda Marshall, Esq.
Oregon Bar No. 953473
S. AMANDA MARSHALL LLC
4545 SW Angel Avenue, Suite 104
Beaverton, OR 97005
Telephone: (503) 472-7190
E-mail: amanda@maclaw.com
-and-
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 507-7924
Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
JORDAN PAIGE: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Nisbett Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
KAREEM NISBETT, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. JORDAN PAIGE FOOD ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED,
d/b/a The Food Crate, Case No. 1:21-cv-06287-GHW (S.D.N.Y., July
23, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Website, www.lumitylife.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans
With Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and New
York City Human Rights Law.
Plaintiff Nisbett seeks a permanent injunction to cause the
Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Defendant is an online retailer of prepared food. Through the
Website, customers can purchase food crates such as an Atlantic
Steam Pot, Charcuterie and Fromagerie Crate, and Backyard Grill
Crate. Customers can also purchase individual cuts of meat and
fish, sides, soup, hors d’oeuvres, sauces, seasoning, produce and
similar items. All items can be shipped anywhere in the United
States or picked up locally in Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10017-6705
Telephone: (212) 392-4772
E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com
KANZHUN LIMITED: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Sept. 10 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on July 25 disclosed that securities fraud class
action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded companies who purchased shares within the
class periods listed below. Shareholders interested in representing
the class of wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to petition the court. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For
more details and to speak with our firm without cost or obligation,
follow the links below.
Kanzhun Limited (NASDAQ:BZ)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT BZ:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/kanzhun-limited-loss-submission-form/?id=17936&from=1
Class Period: June 11, 2021 - July 2, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 10, 2021
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Kanzhun would face an imminent cybersecurity review by the Chinese
government ("CAC"); (2) the CAC would require Kanzhun to suspend
new user registration on its BOSS Zhipin app; (3) Kanzhun needed to
"to conduct a comprehensive examination of cybersecurity risks";
(4) Kanzhun needed to "enhance its cybersecurity awareness and
technology capabilities"; and (5) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.
360 DigiTech, Inc. (NASDAQ:QFIN)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT QFIN:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/360-digitech-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17936&from=1
Class Period: April 29, 2021 - July 7, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 13, 2021
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the Company had been collecting personal information in violation
of relevant People's Republic of China laws and regulations; (ii)
accordingly, 360 DigiTech was exposed to an increased risk of
regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement action; and (iii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
Coinbase Global, Inc. (NASDAQ:COIN)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT COIN:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/coinbase-global-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17936&from=1
This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Coinbase Class A common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement
and prospectus for the resale of up to 114,850,769 shares of its
Class A common stock, whereby Coinbase began trading as a public
company on or around April 14, 2021.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 20, 2021
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company required a sizeable cash injection; (2) the Company's
platform was susceptible to service-level disruptions, which were
increasingly likely to occur as the Company scaled its services to
a larger user base; 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.
Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]
KING UMBERTO: Martinez Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------
ALCIDES DONALDO MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and the Class v. KING UMBERTO, INC., ROSARIO FUSCHETTO,
and PIETRO FUSCHETTO, Case No. 2:21-cv-04140 (E.D.N.Y., July 23,
2021) seeks to recover unpaid wages including minimum and overtime
wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
King Umberto is an Italian restaurant with a principal place of
business at 1343 Hempstead Turnpike, Elmont, New York.
Plaintiff Martinez worked for the Defendants beginning in February
20, 2004 until he was terminated in March 13, 2021. The Plaintiff
was fired and re-hired a total of three times during his employment
with Defendants.
The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff a spread of hours premium on
days which he worked shifts of over 10 hours. Other non-exempt
employees also did not receive spread of hour pay when due.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
KONINKELIJKE PHILIPS: Davis Sues Over Health Risks of CPAP Devices
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELAINE B. DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KONINKELIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH
AMERICA LLC; PHILIPS HOLDING USA, INC.; and PHILIPS RS NORTH
AMERICA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01010-AMM (N.D. Ala.,
July 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach
of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud by omission, negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Alabama
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and sold
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive
Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators
for sleep and home respiratory care, which contain polyester-based
polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam). The Defendants
recalled CPAP and BiLevel PAP devices and mechanical ventilators
containing PE-PUR Foam because they determined that (a) the PE-PUR
Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may enter the
devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and (b) the
PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation health
risks associated to the devices. As a result of the health risks
associated with continued use of these devices and the recall, the
Plaintiff's CPAP devices are now worthless. The Plaintiff will be
forced to replace the device at considerable cost when a
replacement is available, the suit says.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its
principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096
BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its
principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Philips Holding USA, Inc. is a company that manufactures and
distributes medical systems and lighting appliances with its
principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and
markets medical devices with its principal place of business
located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
N. Kirkland Pope, Esq.
Kimberly J. Johnson, Esq.
Michael L. McGlamry, Esq.
Caroline G. McGlamry, Esq.
Courtney L. Mohammadi, Esq.
POPE McGLAMRY, P.C.
3391 Peachtree Road, N.E. Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 523-7706
Facsimile: (404) 524-1648
E-mail: efile@pmkm.com
KONINKELIJKE PHILIPS: Faces Hufnus Suit Over Defective Ventilators
------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW HUFNUS, CHRISTOPHER LUDGATE, TONY SHAPIRO-BEY, and STEPHEN
B. SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. KONINKELIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH
AMERICA LLC; and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-11130-DJC (July 9, 2021) is an action by the Plaintiffs on
behalf of purchasers of Philips Bi-Level Positive Airway Pressure
("BiPAP"), Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ("CPAP"), and
mechanical ventilator devices, which contain polyester-based
polyurethane ("PE-PUR") sound abatement foam ("PE-PUR Foam").
According to the complaint, on April 26, 2021, Philips disclosed it
had determined that there were risks that the PE-PUR Foam used in
certain devices manufactured by Philips may degrade under certain
circumstances. On June 14, 2021, Philips issued a recall of devices
containing PE-PUR Foam, noting that Philips had determined that the
PE-PUR Foam was at risk for degradation into particles which may
enter the device's pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users of
devices which contain PE-PUR Foam, as well as off-gassing certain
chemicals. Philips recommended that patients using Philips BiPAP
and CPAP devices immediately discontinue their use of their
devices.
The Plaintiffs all owned or leased Philips CPAP, BiPAP, or
mechanical ventilator devices prior to June 14, 2021. The
Plaintiffs subsequently learned that their CPAP, BiPAP, or
mechanical ventilator devices had been recalled by Philips due to
the presence of a dangerous PE-PUR Foam that could cause them to
suffer from adverse health effects, including, inter alia, cancer.
The Plaintiffs have been advised by Philips to discontinue use of
their devices. The Plaintiffs must now spend a substantial amount
of time and incur substantial expenses to replace the device, says
the suit.
Koninklijke Philips NV is a health technology company focused on
improving people's health across the health continuum from healthy
living and prevention, to diagnosis, treatment, and home care.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sean K. McElligott, Esq.
David S. Golub, Esq.
Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
Zachary A. Rynar, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
184 Atlantic Street
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 325-4491
Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
E-mail: smcelligott@sgtlaw.com
rsilver@sgtlaw.com
sbloch@sgtlaw.com
isloss@sgtlaw.com
zrynar@sgtlaw.com
-and-
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
Erin G. Comite, Esq.
Alex Outwater, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
ecomite@scott-scott.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Devices Contain PE-PUR Foam, Algofi Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SEBE ALGOFI, BRIAN CASWELL, ELIZA REID, MANUEL MENDOZA, JACQULYN
MCGLYNN, TERICA JEROME, ELLIOT FELDBAU, AMY MALCOLM, CHINEDU
EKWEOZOH, DENISE LINT; and CAROLYN CLAWSON, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.;
PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC; and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-11150-DJC (D. Mass. July 13, 2021) is a class action
complaint on behalf of himself and a proposed class of purchasers
and users of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and
Bi-Level Positive Airway Pressure (Bi-Level PAP) devices and
mechanical ventilators manufactured by Philips, which contain
polyester-based polyurethane sound abatement foam ("PE-PUR Foam").
On April 26, 2021, Philips made a public announcement disclosing it
had determined there were risks that the PE-PUR Foam used in
certain CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and mechanical ventilator devices it
manufactured may degrade or off-gas under certain circumstances.
On June 14, 2021, Royal Philips issued a recall in the United
States of its CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and mechanical ventilator devices
containing PE-PUR Foam, because Philips had determined that (a) the
PE-PUR Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may
enter the devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and
(b) the PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation.
Philips further disclosed in its Recall Notice that "these issues
can result in serious injury which can be life-threatening, cause
permanent impairment, and/or require medical intervention to
preclude permanent impairment."
Philips has disclosed that the absence of visible particles in the
devices does not mean that PE-PUR Foam breakdown has not already
begun. Philips reported that lab analysis of the degraded foam
reveals the presence of harmful chemicals, including: Toluene
Diamine ("TDA"), Toluene Diisocyanate ("TDI"), and Diethylene
Glycol ("DEG").
Prior to issuing the Recall Notice, Philips received complaints
regarding the presence of black debris/particles within the airpath
circuit of its devices (extending from the device outlet,
humidifier, tubing, and mask). Philips also received reports of
headaches, upper airway irritation, cough, chest pressure and sinus
infection from users of these devices, says the suit.
Philips recommended that patients using the recalled CPAP and
Bi-Level PAP devices immediately discontinue using their devices
and that patients using the recalled ventilators for
life-sustaining therapy consult with their physicians regarding
alternative ventilator options.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages based on, inter alia,
Philips' breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranties,
misrepresentations, omissions, and breaches of state consumer
protection laws in connection with its manufacture, marketing and
sales of devices containing PE-PUR Foam on behalf of themselves and
the proposed Class Members. In addition, Plaintiffs seek medical
monitoring damages for users of Philips' devices identified in the
Recall Notice, who are at risk of suffering from serious injury,
including irritation (skin, eye, and respiratory tract),
inflammatory response, headache, asthma, adverse effects to other
organs (e.g., kidneys and liver) and toxic carcinogenic affect.
The Plaintiffs purchased and used the CPAP devices for personal use
as they related to a sleep apnea diagnosis. All Plaintiffs were
harmed and suffered damages, added the suit.
Royal Philips is a Dutch multinational corporation with its
principal place of business located in Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Royal Philips is the parent company of the Philips Group of
healthcare technology businesses, including Connected Care
businesses focusing on Sleep & Respiratory Care. Royal Philips
holds directly or indirectly 100% of its subsidiaries Philips NA
and Philips RS. Royal Philips controls Philips NA and Philips RS in
the manufacturing, selling, distributing, and supplying of the
recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and mechanical ventilator devices.
Philips NA is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3, Cambridge,
Massachusetts 02141. Philips NA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Royal Philips.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
E-mail: jason@blockleviton.com
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MASON, LEITZ, & KLINGER LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
Washington, D.C. 20016
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
gklinger@masonllp.com
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Hwy E., Fl. 2
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 772-7200
E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Provisions Don't Cover Device Recall Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Morland, writing for Reuters, reports that Dutch health
technology company Philips announced forecast-beating earnings and
a share buyback on July 26 but failed to allay investor concerns
over the rising cost of a recall of its respiratory devices.
The shares slipped more than 6% in afternoon trading, touching
their lowest in 10 months and wiping 2.7 billion euros ($3.18
billion) off the group's stock market value.
Philips is working to repair and replace up to 4 million
respiratory devices and ventilators it recalled in June due to a
foam part that might degrade and become toxic, potentially causing
cancer. read more
Though Philips has booked 500 million euros in provisions over the
last two quarters as it looks to repair and replace the devices,
this does not cover the possible costs of litigation from a number
of class action lawsuits.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classified the recall
of Philips' breathing devices and ventilators as the most serious
type of recall, saying their use may cause serious injuries or
death. read more
The agency added that more than 1,200 complaints and 100 injuries
had been reported.
"The business is doing fine, but the focus at the moment is purely
on the issues on the sleep and respiratory business," ING analyst
Marc Hesselink said, adding that the uncertainties were "holding
the stock hostage".
The company aims to ramp up production of its replacements and
repair kits from 55,000 to 80,000 per week by the start of the
fourth quarter, it said on a call with analysts, although it is yet
to obtain a green light from the FDA on the replacement materials.
Once approved, it expects the process of repairing and replacing
the machines to take up to 12 months.
Chief Executive Frans van Houten told analysts that though
regulators' assessment of the replacement devices could take some
eight weeks, Philips was already producing the machines and
shipping them to warehouses to speed up deployment.
"Patients are wanting to get this dealt with as soon as possible,
because not using the therapy is also giving a lot of discomfort
and harm," van Houten said.
Philips announced a 1.5 billion euro share buyback and though it
narrowed its profit margin guidance to the bottom of its previous
range, its quarterly core profit jumped to 532 million euros,
surpassing an average analyst forecast of 519 million. [GN]
KRATOS LOGISTICS: Refuses to Pay Training Hours, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNNY E. POOLE, For himself and others similarly situated, v.
KRATOS LOGISTICS LLC, MIGUEL ANGEL RODRIGUEZ, and DANIEL CAMEJO,
Case No. 1:21-cv-22609-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 21, 2021) alleges that
the Defendants failed and refused to pay its other similarly
situated local delivery drivers for the mandatory training that
they attended.
The Defendants employed more than 20 "last mile" local delivery
drivers. The Defendants required all of their "last mile" local
delivery drivers to attend the mandatory training sessions.
The Plaintiff brings this as a collective action pursuant to 29
U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals who are part of the following class:
"All persons who were by employed by or engaged by Kratos Logistics
LLC, Miguel Angel Rodriguez, and Daniel Camejo, or who were
otherwise employed or engaged by Kratos Logistics LLC, Miguel Angel
Rodriguez, and Daniel Camejo, in the position of "Delivery Driver"
and/or in any substantially similar position, who were paid on an
hourly basis, at any time during the three years prior and up
through the filing of this Complaint."
Defendant Kratos Logistics LLC, is a Florida for-profit limited
liability corporation that has at all times material conducted its
"last mile" local delivery business in Miami-Dade County, Florida,
delivering packages for Amazon.com from one or more warehouses in
South Florida. Kratos Logistics LLC is sui juris.
Defendant, Miguel Angel Rodriguez, was and is a managing member of
the corporate Defendant during the relevant time period. He ran its
day-to-day operations, had supervisory authority over the
Plaintiff, and was partially or totally responsible for paying
Plaintiff's wages.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a delivery driver on
March 14, 2021 to May 12, 2021. The Plaintiff's work for the
Defendants was actually in or so closely related to the movement of
commerce while he worked for the Defendants that the Fair Labor
Standards Act applies to Plaintiff's work for Defendants.
The Defendants offered to pay an hourly rate of pay Plaintiff for
each hour worked. The Defendants required that Plaintiff undergo
training for four days, including from March 14-18, 2021.
The Defendants allegedly failed and refused to pay Plaintiff for
the hours that he spent training from March 14-18, 2021.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
FAIRLAW FIRM
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770
Coral Gables, FL 33146
Telephone: (305) 230-4884
E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com
LEAFFILTER NORTH: Kunkel Seeks Technicians' OT Pay Under FLSA, AMWA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN WESLEY KUNKEL, JR., Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. LEAFFILTER NORTH LLC, Case No.
4:21-cv-00649-DPM (E.D. Ark., July 21, 2021) is a collective action
brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for violations of
the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
overtime provisions of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable
attorney's fee and costs as a result of the Defendant's failure to
pay proper overtime compensation under the FLSA and the AMWA.
Mr. Kunkel contends that the Defendant employed him as an hourly
Service Technicians from August of 2019 until October of 2020. The
Defendant also employed other hourly Service Technicians within the
three years preceding the filing of this lawsuit. As a Service
Technician, he was classified by Defendant as nonexempt from the
overtime requirements of the FLSA and the AMWA. The Defendant
directly hired him and other Service Technicians to work on its
behalf, paid them wages and benefits, controlled their work
schedules, duties, protocols, applications, assignments and
employment conditions, and kept at least some records regarding
their employment, the Plaintiff added.
LeafFilter North, LLC provides gutter protection solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff Looney is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
10800 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
LIDDLE AND LIDDLE: Court Initially OKs Class Settlement in Perchlak
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Perchlak v. Liddle
and Liddle, Case No. 2:19-cv-09461-JFW-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge John F. Walter entered an order:
1. granting the parties' joint motion to reopen case; and
2. granting joint motion for class certification and
preliminary approval of class settlement;
The Court said, "For purposes of preliminary approval, the Court
concludes that the terms of the proposed Settlement are fair,
adequate, and reasonable. However, the Court's conclusion will be
subject to further review for fairness, and evidence of
overreaching and/or collusion, particularly with respect to the
Court's concern regarding the attorneys' fees and any payments to
Plaintiff, following Notice to the Class Members and a Final
Fairness Hearing. Accordingly, because each of the factors weighs
in favor of preliminary approval, the Court grants Plaintiffs'
Motion requesting preliminary approval of the class action
Settlement."
A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rCEh3D at no extra charge.[CC]
LIFEAID BEVERAGE: Kinzer Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KINZER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIFEAID BEVERAGE CO., Defendant, Case No.
5:21-cv-05589-VKD (N.D. Cal., July 21, 2021) brings this complaint
as a class action alleging the Defendant of violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant sent text messages to his
cellular telephone number ending in -8026 on or about April 28,
2021, on or about May 25, 2021, on or about May 27, 2021, on June
3, 2021 and on June 23, 2021 in an attempt to advertise and solicit
the Plaintiff to purchase its products. At no point did the
Plaintiff ever provide his telephone number or any other contact
information to the Defendant, and his prior express invitation or
consent in writing for the Defendant to contact him on his cellular
telephone, which was added to the National-Do-Not-Call Registry on
or about July 29, 2020, for marketing or solicitation purposes,
added the Plaintiff.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's unsolicited text
messages have invaded the Plaintiff's privacy and distracted him
upon receipt because the Plaintiff is alerted when a text message
is received on his cellular device. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks an
injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant's unlawful conduct in
the future, as well as statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, litigation costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Lifeaid Beverage Co. manufactures "premium, healthy, and convenient
nutritional products designed to boost performance and speed
recovery for people pursuing active and healthy lifestyles. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Pamela E. Prescott, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Ave., Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tel: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
pamela@kazlg.com
- and –
Alex S. Madar, Esq.
MADAR LAW CORPORATION
11510 Eaglesview Ct
San Diego, CA 92127
Tel: (858) 299-5879
Fax: (619) 354-7281
E-mail: alex@madarlaw.net
LIFESTYLE LEGAL: Judge Certifies Consumer Law Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Crouth, writing for Daily Maverick, reports that a web of
companies purporting to be "loan providers" is set to be taken to
court in a class action brought by Stellenbosch University (SU) Law
Clinic. The companies are accused of duping thousands of consumers
into signing contracts for paralegal and other "value-added"
services, instead of providing actual loans.
It is a significant step in the struggle against the Lifestyle
Legal group and the first successfully certified consumer law class
action in SA legal history in which the court delivered a
certification judgment. It is also the first successful class
action certification brought by an SA university law clinic.
On 21 July, Judge Patrick Gamble delivered the judgment certifying
the application in which the clinic and eight clients sought
permission to institute the class action on behalf of thousands of
defrauded consumers. The application is granted with an opt-out
mechanism, which means consumers automatically stand to benefit
from its ruling, unless they choose not to.
Only 10 class actions have been successfully certified in SA. This
will be the first consumer law class action in which a court was
required to deliver a certification judgment and the first for
"dark pattern marketing" in the country.
The SU Law Clinic filed the certification application with the
Western Cape High Court on 13 September 2019, after being alerted
to complaints from consumers about 19 websites related to the
Lifestyle Legal group. The websites all prominently bore the word
"loan" as part of their domain names -- loantrackersa.co.za,
loanspottersa.co.za, loanmatchsa.co.za, etc.
The virtual hearing was held from 8 to 9 March 2021. At the start
of proceedings, Lifestyle Legal's representative, Advocate Henno
Bothma, sought to introduce a supplementary affidavit by the 18th
respondent -- the owner of the Lifestyle Legal group, Damian
Malander -- arguing that the interdictory part of the relief was
moot because his clients were no longer operating the various
websites in contention.
Bothma indicated that the respondents accepted that the applicants
had made out a prima facie case for relief based on the causes of
action as pleaded in the founding affidavit and the relevant facts
set out. Counsel accepted, too, that the Law Clinic was a suitable
party to act as the class representative. The only contentious
issues for purposes of certification were the questions of
commonality and appropriateness.
The respondents argued that the cases were unique to each
prospective plaintiff and were not capable of class-wide
resolution. The courts would be required to conduct unique factual
investigations into each consumer's claim with the further prospect
of cross-examination to test its veracity and reliability. In his
ruling, Judge Gamble said this argument "misses the point".
The primary issue is whether the respondents' modus operandi was
the establishment of websites, which were intended to mislead
innocent consumers into believing they were applying for loans
when, in truth and fact, they were not.
"The consumers in the prospective class complain that they were
misled by the websites they visited, having been referred there
automatically when they accessed an online search engine such as
Google looking for short-term loans. The contention that there are
a series of unique factual determinations, which will be required,
is actually a myth.
"The primary issue is whether the respondents' modus operandi was
the establishment of websites, which were intended to mislead
innocent consumers into believing they were applying for loans
when, in truth and fact, they were not."
Malander is believed to have used his security guard and gardener
as the "faces" of his business.
The group is accused of employing "dark pattern" marketing methods,
which appear to offer loans and free "loan-finding" services –
essentially, tricks used in websites and apps that are crafted to
dupe users into buying or signing up for something they did not
intend to, such as buying expensive insurance with another
purchase, or signing up for recurring billing.
Consumers would be tricked by these Lifestyle Legal websites, which
advertised loans – "blacklisted welcome" and "no credit checks",
both illegal in terms of the National Credit Act – and conclude
"contracts" for unwanted services without reading the terms and
conditions.
Invariably, the agreements were for a fixed term of 12 months,
comprising an initial subscription fee ranging from R399 to R429
and a monthly subscription of R99 for the remaining duration of the
agreement. Stunned consumers would then realise that amounts were
being deducted from their bank accounts. Those who reversed the
debits received threats and harassment from the group's collection
agency, Lifestyle Legal, which would threaten to blacklist or take
legal action against consumers if they did not pay in terms of the
"contract".
The Law Clinic alleges that the purported agreements concluded
between the consumers and the relevant websites are unconscionable,
unjust, unreasonable and unfair in terms of sections 40, 41 and 48
of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), or alternatively unlawful
under common law. It alleges that the respondents' conduct, in
terms of their demands for and/or collection of payment, is
unconscionable in terms of section 40 of the CPA, or alternatively
unlawful under the common law.
Stephan van der Merwe, a senior attorney at the SU Law Clinic,
noted in the affidavits that the clinic had received thousands of
complaints by consumers who had fallen foul of the respondents'
alleged trickery. A Facebook group set up in response to the
alleged scam was said to have numbered almost 700 members in August
2019. There had also been widespread media coverage.
Van der Merwe said certification of a class action will enable the
clinic to request restoration of money illegally debited and
compensation for resulting losses on behalf of the affected
consumers.
Professor Theo Broodryk, the manager of the law clinic, said in the
certification application that consumers place a lot of weight on
readily accessible information on the site. "The manner in which
these ‘services' are presented on the site is intended to dupe
consumers. When they searched for loans on Google and other search
engines, they were directed to standard loan application forms and
asked for personal information. They were presented with questions
about whether they were blacklisted, what is the purpose of the
loan, and then asked to click on terms and conditions. Then, in one
of the five hyperlinks, you find it is for convenient service
packages. The websites are guilty of misdirection – they do so
purposefully to misdirect, which is fraudulent misrepresentation."
Consumers were plunged deeper into financial problems. The
Lifestyle Legal group is believed to have ceased operations and
shut down all its "loan" websites after the application was
lodged.
The Payments Association of South Africa (Pasa), which is charged
under the National Payment System Act to monitor, inter alia, the
abuse of the debit order system by commercial users in the banking
sector, has been admitted as amicus curiae in the matter. It argued
that the respondents were confidence tricksters. Pasa noted the
group was not a registered credit provider, nor were its
subsidiaries, because they were not extending loans. No consumers
receive any loans.
No service was ever provided, nor was there evidence consumers had
a need for them.
The judge ruled that the class consisted of all people who have had
money debited from their bank accounts, been harassed, threatened
in connection with any demand for or collection of payment by the
respondents at any time from 1 May 2015 to date on the basis of
them having concluded purported agreements.
Members of the class must be notified of this action. The notice
must be publicised by the 19 respondents within a month. They must
give the clinic the last-known contact details of all its
customers, and widely publicise the notice, including on the Law
Clinic's website and Facebook pages, and the home page of each
website operated by any of the respondents or their proxies and
associates.
Van der Merwe said the SU Law Clinic would now issue a summons on
behalf of the class and that consumers would shortly be notified of
the process for registering their claims.
In terms of the judgment, consumers who wish to opt out of the
class may notify the SU Law Clinic by no later than 1 October 2021
at 021 808 3600 or email: rhkadmin@sun.ac.za. DM168 [GN]
LINCARE INC: Balderson Cross Appeals Ruling to 4th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Chandra Balderson filed a notice of cross appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled 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 Plaintiff files the notice of cross appeal as to Memorandum
Opinion and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law wherein the
Court entered judgment against Lincare in the amount of $150,000,
plus one day back pay in the amount of $141.00, plus attorneys'
fees and expenses. The appellate case is captioned as Chandra
Balderson v. Lincare Inc., Case No. 21-1765, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on July 13, 2021.
The court consolidated Case No. 21-1753 and Case No. 21-1765 as
cross-appeals. Ms. Balderson shall be considered the appellant for
purposes of the consolidated appeals and shall proceed first at
briefing and at oral argument, rules the court.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant CHANDRA BALDERSON, on behalf of herself and a
class of others similarly situated, is represented by:
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: mhissam@hfdrlaw.com
Defendant-Appellee LINCARE INC. is represented by:
David B. Goroff, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP
321 North Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 832-5160
MAGNELL ASSOCIATE: Fu Sues Over Wrongful Termination, Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NANCY FU and NICOLE MAK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAGNELL ASSOCIATE, INC. DBA
NEWEGG.COM; OZZO INC.; and DOES 1 through 40, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 21STCV26949 (Sup. Cal., Los Angeles Cty., July
22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for wrongful
termination in violation of the California Public Policy,
retaliation in violation of the California Labor Code, and unfair
business practices pursuant to the California Business and
Professions Code.
Ms. Fu is a former employee of Newegg and was working as a
merchandising planner in the City of Industry, California from June
11, 2018 until her termination on September 17, 2020.
Ms. Mak is a former employee of Newegg and Ozzo and was working as
a marketing specialist in the City of Industry, California from
April 2019 until her termination on January 8, 2021.
Magnell Associate, Inc., doing business as Newegg.com, is an online
retailer of computer components, clothing and automotive parts,
headquartered in the City of Industry, California.
Ozzo Inc. is a manufacturer of computer components and is a
subsidiary of Newegg.com, headquartered in the City of Industry,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rob Hennig, Esq.
Sereena Singh, Esq.
Sam Brown, Esq.
HENNIG KRAMER RUIZ & SINGH
3600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1908
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 310-8301
Facsimile: (213) 310-8302
MARIELOS CORP: Galicia Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------------
LANCA M. PLEITEZ GALICIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MARIELOS CORP. d/b/a LA CABANA 2 SALVADORENA
RESTAURANT, and MARIELOS LOZANO, PEDRO LOZANO, and JULIO LOZANO, as
individuals, as an individual, Case No. 1:21-cv-06255 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 22, 2021) seeks to recover damages for the Defendants'
egregious violations of the State and Federal wage and hour laws
arising out of Plaintiff's employment at Marielos Corp.
Accordingly, Plaintiff worked 75 hours or more hours per week but
the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for all his
hours worked over 40 in a workweek, the suit says.
As a result of the alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Laws, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory
damages, and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000.00.
The Plaintiff also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all
other legal, and equitable remedies that this Court deems
appropriate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone (718) 263-9591
MATTRESS & FURNITURE: Faces Jimenez-Martin Suit in Cal. State Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mattress & Furniture
Express. The case is captioned as Juan Jimenez-Martin vs. Mattress
& Furniture Express, a limited liability company authorized to do
business in the state of California, Case No.
34-2021-00304193-CU-OE-GDS (Calif. Super., Sacramento Cty., July
14, 2021).
The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues.
The Defendants includes Does 1-50 and MHAS Companies Inc, a
corporation authorized to do business in the state of California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hali Michelle Anderson, Esq.
GRAHAMHOLLIS APC
3555 5th Ave, Ste. 200
San Diego, CA 92103-5057
Telephone: (619) 274-8225
Facsimile: (619) 692-0822
E-mail: handerson@grahamhollis.com
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: OLEPTF Wins Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OREGON LABORERS EMPLOYERS
PENSION TRUST FUND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES INC., HOWARD L. LANCE,
and ANIL WIRASEKARA, Case No. 1:19-cv-00124-WJM-SKC (D. Colo.), the
Hon. Judge William J. Martinez entered an order:
1. granting the Lead Plaintiff's motion for class
certification;
2. certifying the following class under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2), defined as:
"All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Maxar Technologies, Inc.
('Maxar' or the 'Company') during the period from May 9,
2018 through October 30, 2018, inclusive (the 'Class
Period'), and were damaged thereby. Excluded from the
Class are Defendants, present or former executive officers
of Maxar and their immediate family members";
3. appointing Oregon Laborer Employers Pension Trust Fund as
class representative; and
4. appointing, Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(g), the law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as
class counsel.
Accordingly, because Lead Plaintiff has satisfied each of the Rule
23(a) requirements and at least one of the Rule 23(b) requirements,
the Court finds that class certification is proper.
This securities fraud action arises out of alleged false and
misleading statements made by Maxar, and its former executives,
Howard L. Lance, and Anil Wirasekara, regarding the operational and
financial results of Maxar and its subsidiaries.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rDcvE4 at no extra charge.[CC]
MICHAEL FALCONE: Cohen Balks at Fundamental Advisors' Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD COHEN, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of MMA CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC., v. MICHAEL FALCONE,
FREDERICK PUDDESTER, JAMES PRESTON GRANT, CECIL FLAMER, CHRIS HUNT,
LISA KAY, SUZANNE KUCERA and MMA CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
2021-0646 (Del. Ch., July 23, 2021) is a class action against MMAC
and the members of MMAC's Board of Directors for breaches of
fiduciary duties in connection with proposed sale of the Company to
an affiliate of Fundamental Advisors LP.
On May 24, 2021, MMAC's Board caused MMAC to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with FP
Acquisition Parent, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
("Parent") and FP Acquisition Merger Sub, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger
Sub").
The Merger Agreement provides that the Company will merge with and
into Merger Sub, with Merger Sub surviving the Merger as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent, and that MMAC's stockholders will be
cashed out for $27.77 per share in cash (the "Proposed
Transaction").
On July 13, 2021, in order to convince MMAC's shareholders to vote
in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the
filing of a definitive proxy statement, which was filed by MMAC
Networks on Schedule 14A with the SEC (the "Proxy Statement").
The Proxy Statement allegedly fails to provide the Company's
stockholders with material information thereby rendering the
stockholders unable to make an informed decision on whether to vote
in favor of the Proposed Transaction. Specifically, the Proxy
Statement omits MMAC's financial projections and operating data
that the Company's financial advisor, TD Securities (USA) LLC ("TD
Securities") utilized in issuing its fairness opinion. This
material information is necessary for MMAC's shareholders to
properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Transaction. It is
critical that such material information be disclosed to the
Company's stockholders prior to the special meeting of stockholders
to vote on the Proposed Transaction currently scheduled for August
10, 2021 ("Special Meeting"), so they can cast an informed vote on
the Proposed Transaction.
The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding a shareholder
vote on the Proposed Transaction and taking any steps to consummate
the Proposed Transaction unless and until the material information
is disclosed to MMAC's shareholders sufficiently in advance of the
vote on the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the Proposed
Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the
Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty.
The Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times has been, a MMAC
shareholder.
The Defendant MMAC focuses on infrastructure-related investments,
including debt associated with renewable energy, bond, and real
estate investments. MMAC is headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland
and MMAC Stock is traded on the Nasdaq under the symbol "MMAC." The
Individual Defendants are directors of the Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
DE LEEUW LAW LLC
1301 Walnut Green Road
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 274-2180
Facsimile: (302) 351-6905
E-mail: brad@deleeuwlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
Michael J. Klein, Esq.
ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY , LLP
450 Seventh Avenue, 38th Floor
New York, NY 10123
Telephone: (212) 279-5050
E-mail: jabraham@aftlaw.com
mklein@aftlaw.com
MLD MORTGAGE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Dye Suit Over Kickbacks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROGER AND LINDA DYE, et al., Plaintiffs v. MLD
MORTGAGE INC., d/b/a THE MONEY STORE Defendant, Civil Action No.
ELH-19-3304 (D. Md.), Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland denies MLD's motion to
dismiss the complaint.
The putative class action concerns an alleged kickback scheme
between MLD and All Star Title, Inc., a Maryland based title and
settlement services company. Plaintiffs Roger and Linda Dye, Lynn
Glasser and Nicole Cole ("Glasser Plaintiffs"), and Larry Bussard,
are borrowers in connection with residential mortgages. They have
sued MLD in a Complaint that is 53 pages in length, supported by 12
exhibits, complaining that they are victims of an illegal kickback
scheme.
According to the Plaintiffs, MLD made referrals of their loans and
the loans of others to All Star for title and settlement services.
In exchange, All Star allegedly laundered payments to MLD, largely
through third-party marketing companies. All Star is not a
defendant and is allegedly now defunct. According to the
Plaintiffs, as a result of the scheme, they paid inflated
settlement fees. The Plaintiffs contend that the kickback scheme
violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12
U.S.C. Section 2601 (Count I), and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Section 1962 (Count
II).
MLD has moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6), supported by a memorandum. The Plaintiffs oppose the
Motion. And, the Defendant has replied. The Plaintiff has also
submitted a notice of supplemental authority.
Although All Star is not a party to the case, All Star's conduct is
at issue and in other suits in the District. And, the Plaintiffs'
lawyers in the case are counsel to the Plaintiffs in several other
cases in this District involving All Star -- Brasko v. Howard Bank,
SAG-20-3489; Ekstrom v. Congressional Bank, ELH-20-1501; Wilson v.
Eagle National Bank, TDC-20-1344; Somerville v. West Town Bank &
Trust, PJM-19-0490; Remsnyder v. MBA Mortg. Servs., Inc.,
CCB-19-492; Kadow v. First Federal Bank, PWG-19-0566; Walls v.
Sierra Pacific Mortgage Co., Inc., GLR-19-595; Avery v. J.G.
Wentworth, TJS-19-3303; and Donaldson v. Primary Residential
Mortgage, Inc., ELH-19-1175.
No hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion.
Discussion
In moving to dismiss, the Defendant first asserts that the
Plaintiffs lack Article III standing under Count I because they
have not adequately alleged a concrete injury. Second, the
Defendant asserts that the "payment and fees" between All Star and
Titan "are protected by RESPA's safe harbor provision." Third, as
to the RICO claim, MLD asserts that the Plaintiffs did not allege
any specific instances of mail or wire fraud, as required to
satisfy the definition of "racketeering activity."
A. Standing
Judge Hollander is satisfied that the Plaintiffs have plausibly
alleged concrete, financial injuries in the form of overpayments.
The Plaintiffs have explicitly alleged that they were overcharged
for title and settlement services as a result of the alleged
kickbacks. Therefore, they have adequately pleaded Article III
standing.
B. RESPA Safe Harbor
In sum, Judge Hollander holds that the Plaintiffs have alleged that
the payments were not for marketing services but, instead, were
kickbacks for referrals. Although some of the payments for these
alleged kickbacks were paid in 'marketing materials' and postage,
All Star and the Defendants allegedly attempted to conceal the true
nature of the payments through the use of sham invoices and sham
payment records." Accordingly, at this stage of the litigation,
the Judge is satisfied that the Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded
facts that plausibly allege that the payments were not covered by
RESPA's safe harbor.
Moreover, the Judge says the Plaintiffs may not succeed on their
claim. But that is not the test. They have plausibly alleged that
the payments from All Star to the third-party marketing companies
do not fall within Section 8's safe harbor provision.
C. RICO
MLD argues that the Plaintiffs have not adequately asserted a RICO
claim because they failed to allege (1) acts that satisfy the
definition of racketeering activity or (2) the existence of a RICO
enterprise.
Judge Hollander concludes that the Plaintiffs have alleged, with
sufficient particularity, that MLD engaged in a scheme to defraud
borrowers and used the mail and wire services to further that
scheme. She is satisfied that the Plaintiffs have adequately
alleged an association-in-fact enterprise. Accordingly, she
concludes that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged the existence
of a RICO enterprise.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Hollander denies the Motion. An
Order follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 16, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/shwyf5sc from Leagle.com.
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over RV Dwellers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wesley Severson, writing for Hoodline, reports that people living
in their RVs and other oversized vehicles on city streets and
properties have been point of seemingly endless contention in
several Bay Area cities in recent years. Now, the city of Mountain
View is back in the spotlight after the ACLU and the Law Foundation
of Silicon Valley launched a new class-action lawsuit against the
city. The Mercury News reports reports that the lawsuit concerns
six people who will represent all of the RV dwellers in the city.
The lawsuit claims that Mountain View's recent RV and oversized
vehicle parking ban violates state and federal law by
discriminating against people who have disabilities and live in the
RVs.
The suit claims the ban would force roughly 191 RV dwellers to
leave the city of Mountain View, according to San Jose Spotlight.
"We filed the lawsuit with the hopes of striking down the RV ban so
folks will have a place to park in Mountain View. We're really
hoping the city will not ticket or tow any RVs that are being used
for shelter until folks can access affordable housing," Michael
Trujillo with the Law Foundation told San Jose Spotlight.
The city issued a statement saying "due to their size, an oversized
vehicle on a narrow roadway can encroach into the vehicle lane of
traffic, which can increase the risk of collisions for motor
vehicles and bicycles as well as make it more difficult for
emergency and critical service vehicles to navigate the street
safely."
Mountain View officials also point to the fact that the voters in
November were in favor of the RV ban and that the city got the word
out to RV dwellers and gave them options for other housing. City
officials also say they notified property owners about new signs
that are now being installed in the popular RV parking areas that
explain the new rules.
The president of the Affordable Housing Action Network of Santa
Clara County, Sandy Perry, believes that if the RV dwellers are
forced out by police that they'll end up coming back and the
process will start all over again. "Since there is no place to go,
if people get moved along, they will move back. I'm sure Mountain
View will experience the same thing," Perry told San Jose
Spotlight.
Perry says that the city of San Jose has been shuffling RV dwellers
from one place to another for years. Many of the Mountain View
residents may end up relocating to San Jose. SJPD backed off its
enforcement of RV parking during the pandemic but it is now
enforcing 72-hour parking restrictions on city streets.
Several other Bay Area cities have also tried to enact bans on RV
parking on city streets, with another recent ban in Pacifica. Like
Mountain View, that ban is also being challenged by a lawsuit from
the ACLU. The city of Santa Cruz passed a law in 2015 banning
overnight parking of large vehicles, but it has been held up in
legal challenges and pushback from the California Coastal
Commission, who cited restrictions on coastal access caused by such
bans. As the Santa Cruz Sentinel reports, the city council voted
last month to reexamine the originally proposed ban and potentially
create a sanctioned parking program instead. [GN]
MOWI ASA: Tuna Price-Fixing Class Action Interferes With EU Probe
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff White, writing for Seafood Source, reports that the European
Union has not issued any public comment regarding its antitrust
investigation into Norwegian salmon farmers for more than a year,
but on 13 July, it made clear its inquiry is still active.
In a brief filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern
District of Florida, the European Commission contended that a
class-action suit filed on behalf of U.S. purchasers of Norwegian
farmed salmon in 2019 is interfering with its investigation. The
lawsuit accuses Mowi, SalMar, Lerøy Seafood, Grieg Seafood, and
Cermaq Group of exchanging competitively sensitive information
among themselves, with the aim of artificially controlling the
price of farm-raised salmon sold in the United States.
"The Commission seeks to prevent the discovery of investigatory
materials whose continued nondisclosure is critical to the ability
of the European Union as a sovereign to investigate and deter
unlawful cartel activities," the European Commission said in its
brief.
The E.C. confirmed its antitrust investigation in 2019, soon after
conducting unannounced inspections on Tuesday, 19 February at the
premises of several companies involved in the farmed Atlantic
salmon sector in Europe. Since then, it has not issued any public
statements related to the issue, and has declined numerous
inquiries from SeafoodSource to obtain more information on the
status of its investigation.
In March 2021, District Court Judge Cecilia Altonaga issued a
ruling allowing the class-action lawsuit against the Norwegian
producers to proceed. But in its amicus curaie filing, the European
Commission warned Altonaga that allowing the plaintiffs in the case
to seek out information such as corporate documents and data from
the defendants could undermine its investigation.
"Disclosure of information submitted on a voluntary basis during
our investigations can seriously undermine the effectiveness of the
European Commission's and other authorities' antitrust enforcement
actions," it wrote.
The E.C. asked Altonaga to decline to compel the discovery of
material that is exempted from disclosure under E.U. law.
The E.C. said it "is not supporting any of the parties to this
action," but seeks to prevent the discovery "of certain
investigatory materials whose continued nondisclosure is critical
to the E.U.'s ability as a sovereign to investigate and deter
unlawful cartel activities."
The E.C. suggested allowing discovery in the case could potentially
expose participants in the European Union's Leniency Program, which
functions similarly to the U.S. Department of Justice's Amnesty
Program, allowing participants to confess wrongdoing and provide
corroborating evidence in exchange for prosecutorial leniency. The
lawsuit's discovery process could also uncover a settlement
agreement between the E.C. and one or more of the defendants, it
said.
In fact, plaintiffs have already obtained several documents
relating to the E.C.'s ongoing investigation, "including
pre-existing documents, such as business records that existed
independently from the Commission's investigation," according to
the brief. Continued disclosure of sensitive documents could
undermine the E.U.'s authority to conducts investigations within
its own borders, the E.C. said in its brief.
"It could undermine the Commission's enforcement strategy by making
accessible highly sensitive information that could reveal, e.g.,
the investigation's next steps, the theory of harm pursued by the
Commission, or entities that are not yet -- but could in the future
-- become subject to the proceedings. Likewise, disclosure of
replies to Commission requests for information would tend to reveal
the Commission's investigative strategy by indicating which
questions the Commission asked in the course of its investigation,
which documents it requested, and which documents are contained in
the Commission's file while the Commission's investigation is
ongoing," it said.
Specifically, the plaintiffs in the U.S. class-action suit have
requested "draft and final responses provided to the European
Commission's questionnaires sent to participants in the salmon
industry." Providing the answers provided by the salmon companies
to E.C. investigators could undermine both the commission's
authority in this case, and more broadly, damage the ability of
U.S. and E.U. law enforcement officials to conduct investigations
that cross international boundaries, the E.C. contended.
"Destroying the nondisclosure promise after the fact creates an
unfair and unexpected harm to companies who cooperated with or
otherwise provided information to the Commission, reduces
confidence in the Commission's sovereign promises, and, in turn,
makes it more difficult for the Commission to secure future
cooperation and to obtain information from parties suspected of
engaging in anticompetitive acts. Such a result could have a
corresponding negative impact on the U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division's amnesty program and its international
anti-cartel enforcement program," it said. "In short, the guarantee
of nondisclosure lies at the heart of the Commission's ability to
detect and punish unlawful cartels, and anything that damages that
guarantee undermines the E.U.'s sovereign interest in preventing
and punishing cartels and risks serious economic harm to consumers
in the EU. In light of the global nature of much cartel activity,
impeding the Commission's ability to combat unlawful cartels would
likely have negative effects on consumers in other places --
including the United States."
The E.C. limited its request of withholding of information to
so-called "black-listed" documents, pertaining to leniency
statements and settlement submissions, and "grey-listed" documents,
which include information that was prepared by a natural or legal
person specifically for the proceedings of a competition authority;
information that the competition authority has drawn up and sent to
the parties in the course of its proceedings; and settlement
submissions that have been withdrawn.
"EU law ensures unequivocal nondisclosure of ‘black-listed'
evidence permanently and ‘grey-listed' evidence until the
competition authority closes its investigation," the E.C. wrote.
"Judicial orders countermanding the nondisclosure binding under
E.U. law necessarily call into question the validity of public acts
by a sovereign authority within its own borders. That is, this
court cannot compel the discovery of documents that are protected
under E.U. law without simultaneously declaring invalid and
ineffective the official acts of a foreign sovereign – in the
context of the applicable E.U. directives and regulations whose
legal quality is akin to statutes in the U.S. – which extended
the nondisclosure status to the evidence. Accordingly, the court
should not authorize the discovery of documents or information that
cannot be disclosed under E.U. law."
Altonaga is set to hear more arguments pertaining to the request on
Thursday, 29 July. Any delay in discovery -- as occurred in the
class-action lawsuits filed in the recent canned tuna price-fixing
case against StarKist and Bumble Bee Foods (evidence of which was
revealed through Chicken of the Sea's participation in the U.S.
Justice Department's amnesty program) could benefit the plaintiffs
by allowing the E.C. to press one or more of the accused companies
into providing evidence of wrongdoing.
Michael Lehmann, a partner with San Francisco, California,
U.S.A.-based Hausfeld LLP, previously told SeafoodSource the E.U.'s
initial announcement of its inquiry in February 2019 was an impetus
in the filing of his clients' complaint, and that any findings from
the investigation will likely play a major role in how the case is
decided.
However, in March 2021, Lehmann and Peter Prieto, a partner with
Miami-based Podhurst Orseck, who is also representing some
plaintiffs in the class-action suit, said as the case has
proceeded, it can now stand on its own merits.
In a response to the E.C.'s brief filed with the court on 14 July,
the plaintiffs argued the E.C. did not give them proper notice of
their intent to intervene in the lawsuit, and said it opposed a
limitation of its discovery process.
"There are better ways to address the EC's concerns without
prohibiting the production of the documents at all, which is
directly contrary to the goals of the antitrust laws in this
country," they wrote. "Plaintiffs and the E.C. can likely address
some of these concerns through a meet-and-confer process, which has
not yet been conducted." [GN]
NATIONAL CLAIMS: Faces Bobbs Suit Over Employee Misclassification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Bobbs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. National Claims Adjusters, Inc., Case No. (July 22,
2021) is an action brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act.
This action is also brought as a putative class action under the
California Labor Code and relevant Minimum Wage Order, and
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, the California Unfair
Competition Law, and the California Labor Code and relevant
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.
According to its website, the Defendant National Claims Adjusters,
Inc. is an independent adjusting company that handles hurricane,
flood, hail, tornado, and earthquake insurance claims throughout
the United States. 1 Plaintiff handled property damage claims on
behalf of Defendant.
The National misclassified Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals that handled property damage claims as independent
contractors, in violation of California and federal law.
In particular, Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals in
California (the "California Class Action Members") were not free
from the control and direction of National, performed work in the
usual course of National's business, and were not customarily
engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or
business of the same nature as that involved in the work
performed.
As a result of this misclassification, Defendant has unlawfully
failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals all due
and owing minimum wages, in part, because it failed to reimburse
necessary business expenses incurred for Defendant's benefit
(including, but not limited to, cellular phone and data expenses,
paper, printer, ink, and other office supplies) in violation of
federal and California state law, says the suit
Bobbs worked for the Defendant remotely from her home in San Diego
County, California from September 2018 through October 2018.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent the California Class Action
Members composed of and defined as follows:
"All current and former individuals located in California who
handled insurance claims for Defendant at any time within the
four years prior to the date of filing of this Complaint through
the date of the final disposition of this action who were
classified as independent contractors."
The Defendant is an independent adjusting company that hires
"independent contractors" to review and process insurance
claims.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
SHELLIST | LAZARZ | SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
marbuckle@eeoc.net
NATIONAL CONSUMER: Trepeta Class Cert. Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT TREPETA v. NATIONAL
CONSUMER TELECOM AND UTILITIES EXCHANGE, INC. and EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00405-RCY-DEM (E.D.
Va.), the Hon. Judge Roderick C. Young entered an order that stay
in this action is to be lifted.
The Court also denies without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification, filed ten months ago with supplemental
authority filed in March 2021.
The Plaintiff may refile a motion for class certification after
having considered the effects of Ramirez on class certification.
On May 18, 2021, the Court stayed this action pending the Supreme
Court's issuance of its opinion in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141
S. Ct. 2190 (2021).
A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iSwcnz at no extra charge.[CC]
NCAA: Disregards Players' Health and Safety, Girard Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE GIRARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No.
1:21-cv-02100-JMS-MPB (S.D. Ind., July 23, 2021) is a class action
complaint against the Defendants to obtain redress for all persons
injured by the Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and
safety of Washington and Lee University (W&L) student-athletes.
The Plaintiff is a former college football player seeking to
represent a class of other similarly situated student-athletes
(Players) who allegedly suffered concussive and sub-concussive head
injuries while participating in football games and practices at the
Washington and Lee University.
The NCAA was created to protect the students that participate in
various college sports, including football. Despite its purpose,
the NCAA has allegedly failed to take reasonable actions to protect
Players from the chronic risks created by such injuries and
fraudulently concealed those risks from Players.
Approximately 100 years ago, medical studies first revealed that
athletes who endured repeated head contact risked long-term brain
damage. Numerous subsequent medical studies established that the
head trauma routinely inflicted in football games can cause
neurocognitive decline, permanent mental disability and death.
NCAA is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletes
from up to 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.
Washington and Lee University is a private liberal arts university
in Lexington, Virginia. Established in 1749 as the Augusta Academy,
the university is among the oldest institutions of higher learning
in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 554-9099
Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com
- and -
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
rbalabanian@edelson.com
NCAA: Ferguson Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Joseph
Ferguson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-02110-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind., July 26, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NCAA: Mimms Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Harry Mimms,
Joseph Ingram, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-02111-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind., July 26, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NOBLE ENERGY: Natural Gas Royalties Class Action Deserves Remand
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the Tenth Circuit said a lower court wrongly
refused to send to state court a class action Colorado natural gas
royalties payment dispute and said defendants including Noble
Energy can't rely on speculative damages to establish federal
jurisdiction. [GN]
NYACK COLLEGE: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Stevez Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARTURO STEVEZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. NYACK COLLEGE, Case No. 1:21-cv-06224 (S.D.N.Y., July
21, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Website to be fully and equally
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually impaired people.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, https://www.nyack.edu/site/, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Because the Defendant's Website is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually impaired consumers, resulting in violation of
the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so
that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition blindness in that they have a visual
acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some
blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others
have no vision.
The Defendant operates the Nyack College online college across the
United States including the State of New York. This online and
physical college constitutes a place of public accommodation. The
Defendant's Website provides prospective students with access to an
array of services including the ability to take courses online, to
pay tuition and other costs online, apply for payment plans, and
apply for admissions online, as well as information relating to
course offerings, financial aid, cost of tuition, majors, and other
services available online and other general information about
attending the college.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
OATLY GROUP: Scott+Scott Reminds of September 24 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, has filed a
securities class action lawsuit against Oatly Group AB (NASDAQ:
OTLY) ("Oatly" or the "Company") and certain of its officers and
directors, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b) and Sec. 78t(a)) and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5). If
you purchased Oatly American Depository Shares ("ADSs") stock
between May 20, 2021 and July 15, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), and have suffered a loss, realized or unrealized, you are
encouraged to contact Jonathan Zimmerman for additional information
at (888) 398-9312 or jzimmerman@scott-scott.com. The action was
filed in the Southern District of New York under Dkt. No.
1:21-cv-06360.
Oatly is the world's original and largest oatmilk company. It is
organized under the laws of Sweden and held its U.S. Initial Public
Offering in May 2021.
The action alleges that Oatly and the other defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statement to investors during
the Class Period. Specifically, the action alleged that Oatly: (a)
overinflated its gross margins, revenue, and capital expenditure
financial metrics; (b) overstated the proprietary nature of its
formulas and manufacturing process; (c) exaggerated its success in
China; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, Oatly's statements
about its operations, business, and prospects were misleading
during the Class Period.
On July 14, 2021, before the market opened, short seller Spruce
Point issued a Report entitled, "Sour on an Oat-lier Investment."
The 124-page Report alleged a wide array of misconduct and
misstatements by Oatly, including that it wrongfully overstated its
revenue, gross margin, accounting, and capital expenditure metrics;
the proprietary nature of its production process and formula; and
its growth story in China, among other things. A number of news
outlets reported on the Spruce Point Report over the following
days.
On this news, the price of Oatly ADSs fell 7.8% over two days, from
a close price of $21.13 on July 13, 2021, to a close price of
$19.48 on July 15, 2021, on unusually high trading volume.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline
The Lead Plaintiff deadline in this action is September 24, 2021.
Any member of the proposed Class may seek to serve as Lead
Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class.
What You Can Do
If you purchased Oatly ADSs between May 20, 2021 and July 15, 2021,
or if you have questions about this notice or your legal rights,
you are encouraged to contact attorney Jonathan Zimmerman at (888)
398-9312 or jzimmerman@scott-scott.com.
About Scott+Scott
Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and consumer rights actions throughout the
United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations,
individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York,
London, Amsterdam, Connecticut, California, Virginia, and Ohio.
This may be considered Attorney Advertising.
CONTACT:
Jonathan Zimmerman
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169
(888) 398-9312
jzimmerman@scott-scott.com [GN]
OCUGEN INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Ocugen, Inc. (NASDAQ: OCGN) investors
that acquired shares between February 2, 2021 and June 2, 2021.
Investors have until August 17, 2021 to seek an active role in this
litigation.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.
The investigation focuses on whether Ocugen issued misleading
and/or false statements and/or failed to disclose information
pertinent to investors. On May 26, 2021, Ocugen announced that it
planned to submit to the FDA an Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA")
application for COVAXIN, a COVID-19 vaccine, in June 2021. On June
10, 2021, Ocugen announced that it "will no longer pursue an
Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for COVAXIN," instead choosing to
"pursue submission of a biologics license application (BLA) for its
COVID-19 vaccine candidate, COVAXIN." Ocugen's Chairman and CEO
stated, "Although we were close to finalizing our EUA application
for submission, we received a recommendation from the FDA to pursue
a BLA path," and that "this will extend our timelines." Shares of
Ocugen fell by more than 24% in intraday trading on the same day,
based on this news.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 17,
2021.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]
OCWEN LOAN: Franklin Class Status Bid Held in Abeyance
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY FRANKLIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-03333-SI (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered an order granting an abeyance
regarding plaintiff's motion for class certification.
Ocwen Loan provides mortgage loans.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BOQeI7 at no extra charge.[CC]
ONDAS HOLDINGS: Carlisle Sues Over Acquisition of American Robotics
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SAM CARLISLE v. ONDAS HOLDINGS INC., ERIC A. BROCK, STEWART G.
KANTOR, THOMAS V. BUSHEY, RICHARD M. COHEN, DEREK REISFIELD,
RANDALL P. SEIDL, RICHARD H. SILVERMAN, and JASPREET SOOD, Case No.
5:21-cv-05665 (N.D. Cal., July 23, 2021) is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging that the
Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff seeks to and to enjoin the vote on a proposed
transaction, Ondas will acquire American Robotics, Inc. through
Ondas' subsidiaries Drone Merger Sub I Inc. and Drone Merger Sub II
Inc.
On May 17, 2021, Ondas issued a press release announcing that it
had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated May 17, 2021
to merge Ondas with American Robotics. Under the terms of the
Merger Agreement, the Company will acquire American Robotics in
exchange for cash consideration in an amount equal to $7,500,000,
less certain transaction expenses and indebtedness of American
Robotics.
On July 6, 2021, Ondas filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the SEC. The Proxy
Statement, which recommends that Ondas stockholders vote in favor
of the issuance of shares of Ondas common stock, including shares
of common stock underlying the warrants, in connection with the
Proposed Transaction ("Stock Issuance Proposal"), omits or
misrepresents material information critical and essential to that
decision. Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and
misleading Proxy Statement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.
It is imperative that the material information omitted from the
Registration Statement is disclosed to the Company's stockholders
prior to the forthcoming stockholder vote so that they can properly
exercise their corporate suffrage rights, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to
consummate the Proposed Transaction unless and until the material
information discussed below is disclosed to the Company's
stockholders or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is
consummated, to recover damages resulting from the defendants'
violations of the Exchange Act.
The Plaintiff is, and has been at all times relevant hereto, a
continuous stockholder of Ondas.
The Defendant Ondas is a Nevada corporation, with its principal
executive offices located at 61 Old South Road, No. 495, Nantucket,
Massachusetts 02554. Formerly a reseller of event tickets, in 2018
the Company consummated a reverse acquisition transaction to
acquire a wireless broadband technology company, Ondas Networks,
and changed its name from "Zev Ventures Incorporated" to "Ondas
Holdings Inc." (the "Acquisition"). Ondas' common stock trades on
the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the ticker symbol "ONDS." The
Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
9100 Wilshire Blvd. No. 725 E.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com
OS RESTAURANT: Faces Hutton FLSA Suit Over Tip Credit, Underpayment
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BAILEY HUTTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OS RESTAURANT SERVICES, LLC and OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE OF
)FLORIDA, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00560 (M.D. Tenn., July 23, 2021)
implicates Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's
tip credit and subsequent underpayment of their employees at the
federally mandated minimum wage rate for their failure to pay
Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers their earned minimum
wages.
According to the complaint, the Defendants pay their tipped
employees below the minimum wage rate by taking advantage of the
tip-credit provisions of the FLSA. Under the tip-credit provisions,
an employer of tipped employees may, under certain circumstances,
pay those employees tips than the minimum wage rate by taking a
"tip credit" against the employer's minimum wage obligations from
the tips received from customers.
The Defendants operate under a unified business model and part of
that unified business model is the wage violations alleged in this
Complaint. Thus, Defendants formed a "single enterprise" and are
liable for the violations of the other.
The Defendants operate a nationwide chain of restaurants under the
trade name “Outback Steakhouse" throughout the U.S. Defendants
operate in Arizona, Alabama, Florida, Missouri, Georgia, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas and other states.
A waiter gathers orders from customers and delivers food and drinks
to the customers. A waiter is paid an hourly wage by Defendants and
also receives tips from customers. However, the Defendants pay
their tipped workers less than the minimum wage under the law, says
the suit.
The Defendants attempted to utilize the tip credit to meet their
minimum wage obligation to their tipped workers, including the
Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants at
the Outback Steakhouse locations in Bristol, Tennessee and
Murfreesboro, Tennessee. He worked as a waiter and was paid less
than the federal minimum wage. He worked for Defendants from
February 2016 to August 2020.
The tip credit has a harmful effect on workers that threatens the
health of the economy. Adasina Social Capital, a company
representing investors with more than $538 billion in assets, has
issued a letter large corporations operating restaurants advising
of the ills of using the tip credit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert C. Bigelow, Esq.
BIGELOW LEGAL. P.C.
4235 Hillsboro Pike. #217
Nashville, TN 37215
Telephone: (615) 829-8986
E-mail: bigelowlegal@gmail.com
- and -
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-000!
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
- and -
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Alanna Klein Fischer, 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
alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
P&G CO: Helterbrand Suit Moved From Circuit Court to E.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Helterbrand v. Procter &
Gamble Company, Case No. 21SL-CC01372, was removed from the Circuit
Court, St. Louis County Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis) on July 14, 2021.
The Eastern District of Missouri Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:21-cv-00855-NCC to the proceeding.
The lawsuit arises from alleged tort product liability demanding
$50,000 in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate
Judge Noelle C. Collins.
The Procter & Gamble is an American multinational consumer goods
corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, founded in 1837 by
William Procter and James Gamble.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Paul Green, Esq.
Mark C. Goldenberg, Esq.
Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq.
GOLDENBERG HELLER PC
2227 SOUTH STATE ROUTE 157
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 656-5150
Facsimile: (618) 656-6230
E-mail: kevin@ghalaw.com
mark@ghalaw.com
tom@ghalaw.com
- and -
Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq.
Daniel Scott Levy, Esq.
LAW OFFICE RICHARD S CORNFELD
1010 Market Street, Suite 1645
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 241-5799
Facsimile: (314) 241-5788
E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com
dlevy@cornfeldlegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David A. Schott, Esq.
Scott D. Bjorseth, Esq.
RYNEARSON SUESS LLC -- EDWARDSVILLE
107 Southpointe Dr.
Edwardsville, IL 62025-3781
Telephone: (618) 659-0588
Facsimile: (618) 465-3744
E-mail: dschott@rssclaw.com
sbjorseth@rssclaw.com
PARENTS ASSOCIATION: Faces Diaz Suit Over Workers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS DIAZ (A.K.A NOE MIRANDA), EMMANUEL MANCILLA ROSENDO, JOSUE
RUIZ, MIGUEL TOL and MANUEL ROMUALDO LOPEZ TAMBRIZ, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PARENTS ASSOCIATION
OF YESHIVA AND MESIFTA TORAH VODAATH, INC. (D/B/A YESHIVA TORAH
VODAATH), YESHIVA TORAH VODAATH and NISSIM H. AHARONOF, Case No.
1:21-cv-04102 (E.D.N.Y., July 21, 2021) seeks to recover for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff contends that he worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime
and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked.
Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay him appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay him the
required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he has had to
work over 10 hours a day, added the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiffs were employed as cook, assistant cook, food
preparers and kitchen helpers at the Orthodox Jewish School located
at 425 E. 9th St., Brooklyn, New York.
The Defendants operate an Orthodox Jewish School located in the
Kensington neighborhood of Brooklyn in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
PARKMOBILE LLC: Demos Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ParkMobile, LLC. The
case is styled as Eva Megean Demos, on behalf of herself and all
others situated v. ParkMobile, LLC, Case No. 2021CV352327 (Ga.
Super. Ct., Fulton Cty., July 27, 2021).
The case type is stated as "TORT/NEGLIGENCE."
ParkMobile, LLC -- https://parkmobile.io/ -- is the leading
provider for on-demand and prepaid mobile payments for on- and
off-street parking.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MaryBeth Gibson, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
Piedmont Center
3535 Piedmont Road
Building 14, Suite 230
Atlanta, GA 30305
PENN FOSTER: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Stevez Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ARTURO STEVEZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. PENN FOSTER, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-06225 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 21, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully and
equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually impaired people.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, https://www.pennfoster.edu/, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Because the Defendant's Website is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually impaired consumers, resulting in violation of
the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so
that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition blindness in that they have a visual
acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some
blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others
have no vision.
The Defendant offers the commercial website,
https://www.pennfoster.edu/, to the public. The website offers
features which should allow all prospective students to access the
services offered by the Defendant. The services offered by
Defendant include: allow students the ability to take courses
online, to pay tuition and other costs online, apply for payment
plans, and apply for admissions online, as well as information
relating to course offerings, financial aid, cost of tuition,
majors, and other services available online and other general
information about attending the college.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
PEOPLEASE LLC: Espinoza Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Demis Espinoza, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Peoplease, LLC, Managed
Labor Solutions, LLC, Case No. 21-012815-CA-01 was removed from the
11th Judicial Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on July 26, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-22684-BB to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
PEOPLEASE -- https://www.peoplease.com/ -- provides
industry-leading technology, safety, risk, and payroll expertise to
help clients retain top talent and focus on growth.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc Reed Edelman, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 N. Franklin Street
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 577-4722
Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Garrett Scott Kamen, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
450 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 800
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 847-4735
Email: gkamen@fisherphillips.com
PERRIGO CO: To Proceed Class Action After Denied Dismissal Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Irish Times reports that a US judge has rejected pharma giant's
Perrigo's attempt to dismiss a shareholder class action that claims
it didn't disclose a EUR1.6 billion tax liability from Revenue in a
timely manner, writes the Sunday Independent. Instead, the judge
granted a summary judgment to the shareholders on the issues of
falsity and materiality, it adds. [GN]
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES: Refuses Canceled Flight Refunds, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GEMNAIKA FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES and PAL HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
4:21-cv-05637-TSH (N.D. Cal., July 22, 2021) is a class action
lawsuit regarding Philippine Airlines' failure to provide full
refunds to customers whose flights were canceled or were subject to
a significant schedule change and not refunded as a result of
COVID-19.
Given the outbreak of the coronavirus, PAL has canceled a vast
percentage of its international and U.S. flights. Allegedly, PAL
has refused to issue refunds for flights that it canceled or
significantly altered. PAL's inexplicable and continuous
withholding of passengers' 13 refunds stands in direct
contravention of its Contract of Carriage as well as other
representations made to passengers.
PAL's treatment of Plaintiff is no exception. On December 17, 2019,
the Plaintiff purchased two roundtrip tickets departing on April
22, 2020, from San Francisco to Manila, the Philippines for
$1,356.08. However, on April 5, 2020, PAL canceled Plaintiff's
flights. The Plaintiff immediately attempted to secure a voucher.
But after realizing that she would be unable to fly during the
COVID-19 pandemic, Plaintiff requested that PAL issue her a refund.
On July 30, 2020, Plaintiff received a confirmation email from PAL
representative, Cecilia A. Murillo, that her refund request had
been filed and that she should "allow 3-6 months processing," says
the suit.
After nearly six months, the Plaintiff emailed Ms. Murillo on
December 10, 2020 to request the status of her refund. Ms. Murillo
responded on December 10, 2020 stating that "[a]ll refunds are
being handled by our head office" and that Plaintiff should allow
for additional processing.
On December 29, 2020, Plaintiff sent an additional email to Ms.
Murillo requesting an update. Ms. Murillo responded on December 30,
2021, stating that she "sent follow up today" and that Plaintiff
should continue to be patient.
All told, Plaintiff has waited for her refund for more than 12
months. She sent a total of emails and called 10 times. PAL's
representations to Plaintiff never materialized. Instead, PAL led
Plaintiff, like others similar situated, through a test of
exhaustion. As this Complaint will demonstrate, PAL breached both
its Contract of Carriage as well as subsequent representations to
its consumers who desperately sought a refund amidst a global
pandemic and economic recession. In doing so, PAL inexplicably
refused to issue refunds for Plaintiff and Class Members, the suit
added.
Plaintiff Flores is, and at all times relevant to this action has
been, a citizen of California and a resident of Union City,
California.
The Philippine Airlines, a trade name of PAL Holdings, Inc., also
known historically as Philippine Air Lines, is the flag carrier of
the Philippines. Headquartered at the PNB Financial Center in
Pasay, the airline was founded in 1941 and is the first and oldest
commercial airline in Asia operating under its original name.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Sean L. Litteral, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
slitteral@bursor.com
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on July 25 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of Piedmont Lithium Inc. ("Piedmont" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: PLL) from March 16, 2018 through July 19, 2021 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York alleges violations of the Exchange
Act of 1934.
If you purchased Piedmont securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Piedmont Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Noah Wiesner toll free at (877)
779-1414 or nwiesner@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Piedmont has not, and would not, follow its stated steps
or timeline to secure all proper and necessary permits; (ii)
Piedmont failed to inform relevant people and governmental
authorities of its actual plans; (iii) Piedmont failed to file
proper applications with relevant governmental authorities
(including state and local authorities); (iv) Piedmont and its
lithium business does not have "strong governmental support"; and
(v) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
On July 20, 2021, before market hours, Reuters published an article
entitled "In push to supply Tesla, Piedmont Lithium irks North
Carolina neighbors." Among other things, the article reported that
"[t]he company […] has not applied for a state mining permit or a
necessary zoning variance in Gaston County, just west of Charlotte,
despite telling investors since 2018 that it was on the verge of
doing so." The article went on to report that "[f]ive of the seven
members of the county's board of commissioners, who control zoning
changes, say they may block or delay the project[.]"
On this news, Piedmont shares fell $12.56 per share over the
trading day, or nearly 20%, to close at $50.52 per share on July
20, 2021, damaging investors.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 21, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Piedmont securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/piedmontlithium-pll-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-420/apply/
or contact Noah Wiesner toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
nwiesner@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information:
Noah Wiesner
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
Nwiesner@bernlieb.com [GN]
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 21 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on July 26 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Piedmont Lithium Inc. ("Piedmont Lithium" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: PLL) in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Piedmont Lithium
securities between March 16, 2018 and July 19, 2021, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until September 21,
2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
On July 20, 2021, before market hours, Reuters published an article
entitled "In push to supply Tesla, Piedmont Lithium irks North
Carolina neighbors." Among other things, the article reported that
"[t]he company [. . .] has not applied for a state mining permit or
a necessary zoning variance in Gaston County, just west of
Charlotte, despite telling investors since 2018 that it was on the
verge of doing so." The article went on to report that "[f]ive of
the seven members of the county's board of commissioners, who
control zoning changes, say they may block or delay the
project[.]"
On this news, Piedmont shares fell $12.56 per share over the
trading day, or nearly 20%, to close at $50.52 per share on July
20, 2021.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Piedmont has not, and would not, follow its stated steps
or timeline to secure all proper and necessary permits; (ii)
Piedmont failed to inform relevant people and governmental
authorities of its actual plans; (iii) Piedmont failed to file
proper applications with relevant governmental authorities
(including state and local authorities); (iv) Piedmont and its
lithium business does not have "strong governmental support"; and
(v) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Piedmont Lithium shares and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa
Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com,
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 26
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Piedmont Lithium Inc. f/k/a/
Piedmont Lithium Limited (NASDAQ: PLL, PLL) between March 16, 2018
and July 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action
lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 21,
2021.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Piedmont securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Piedmont class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2124.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 September 21,
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, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Piedmont has not, and would
not, follow its stated steps or timeline to secure all proper and
necessary permits; (2) Piedmont failed to inform relevant people
and governmental authorities of its actual plans; (3) Piedmont
failed to file proper applications with relevant governmental
authorities (including state and local authorities); (4) Piedmont
and its lithium business does not have "strong local government
support"; and (5) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join the Piedmont class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2124.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Piedmont
Lithium Inc. ('Piedmont' or 'the Company') (NASDAQ:PLL) for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between
March 16, 2018 and July 19, 2021, inclusive (the 'Class Period'),
are encouraged to contact the firm before
September 21, 2021.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Piedmont would not follow the steps or
timeline to secure all necessary permits from governmental
agencies. The Company failed to inform appropriate governmental
agencies and authorities of its planned activities. The Company
failed to file applications with relevant authorities including the
state and local governments. Despite its claims, the Company did
not have 'strong local government support.' Based on these facts,
the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Piedmont, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
Contacts
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
PLANO SYNERGY: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
PLANO SYNERGY HOLDING INC, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER
PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. PENN FOSTER, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-06208 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2021) alleges that the Defendant
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to
be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, www.wildgameinnovations.com/, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Because the Defendant's Website is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually impaired consumers, resulting in violation of
the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so
that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition blindness in that they have a visual
acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some
blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others
have no vision.
Plano Synergy offers fishing and fall sports products such as
tackle boxes, bait storage, gun cases, archery cases and ice
fishing products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com
PURDUE PHARMA: Pittsfield, North Adams Set to Get Sackler Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Bellow, writing for The Berkshire Eagle, reports that the
court document scrolls on the screen like an eternal list of
sorrow. The plaintiffs include Flint, Mich., the Navajo Nation,
Nantucket, the cities of Holyoke, Fall River and Northampton, Her
Majesty The Queen In Right of The Province of British Columbia, and
the Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians, whose
people now are in Wisconsin.
It also includes the cities of North Adams and Pittsfield among the
other entities and communities ravaged by the opioid crisis and
entitled to settlements from the Sackler family, founders and
owners of OxyContin-maker Purdue Pharma. And it includes people
like Gary Pratt, a Sheffield man who says he lost years of his life
because of a painkiller that was marketed as "nonaddictive" and
approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
The 130-page document speaks to the vast ruination of lives, of
warlike devastation. Yet, what is coming to the more than 3,000
plaintiffs can't make up for what has been lost in an epidemic that
has killed almost half a million Americans in the past two decades,
and more than 300 Berkshire County residents from 2010 through
2020, according to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.
"There's no dollar amount that is recompense for any life, but
understanding that there is accountability is important, and I hope
will bring a measure of peace to people," said North Adams Mayor
Thomas Bernard.
North Adams Mayor Thomas Bernard says settlement money from the
Purdue Pharma/Sackler family settlement never will be enough to
make up for the destruction caused by the opioid epidemic.
"There's no dollar amount that is recompense for any life, but
understanding that there is accountability is important, and I hope
will bring a measure of peace to people"
-- Thomas Bernard, North Adams mayor
Bernard said he has no idea how much money will come to the city
when the multibillion-dollar payouts are made from the Sackler
family's cash and assets. He explained that the city joined the
class-action suit after attorneys for other plaintiffs contacted
him in 2018. In June, the city received an email from the
attorneys, recommending that the city accept terms of the
settlement and asking Bernard if it was on board. Bernard said
yes.
Like all the plaintiffs who agreed to the settlement, the city will
pump this money into programs and services that address addiction
and treatment. The state's Opioid Recovery and Remediation Fund
Advisory Council will help steer use of the money. Pittsfield's
Department of Health director, Gina Armstrong, is on the council.
In Pittsfield, Mayor Linda Tyer's office referred questions to City
Solicitor Stephen Pagnotta, who said he can't answer to what
specific programs the money will fund, or how much is coming, since
"the details are still foggy." But, he said whatever it is won't be
enough.
"I think it's fair to say that any of the municipalities, including
Pittsfield, are unlikely to get fully compensated for the costs,
direct and indirect, incurred as a result of the opioid epidemic,"
Pagnotta said. Like North Adams, Pittsfield signed on to the
class-action suit in January 2018, he added.
Tyer said in 2018 that there was no cost to joining the suit, and
that attorneys will get 25 percent of settlement proceeds.
The settlements will come from a much-negotiated, much-criticized
bankruptcy plan that requires the Sackler family to pay out $4.325
billion over the next nine years, with no admission of wrongdoing,
and with immunity from future suits. Other fruits include the
reorganization of Purdue into an entity that helps combat the
opioid crisis, the unsealing of millions of internal documents, and
the Sacklers giving up the family's many trusts.
The restructuring stems from a lawsuit filed by Massachusetts
Attorney General Maura Healey and 23 other state attorneys general
over the influence of the company's aggressive marketing of its
narcotic painkiller and an ongoing national crisis.
In a July 8 statement, Healey said the action has forced corporate
malfeasance into the light.
"While I know this resolution does not bring back loved ones or
undo the evil of what the Sacklers did, forcing them to turn over
their secrets by providing all the documents, forcing them to repay
billions, forcing the Sacklers out of the opioid business, and
shutting down Purdue will help stop anything like this from ever
happening again. This case has also shown us that our legal system
needs to change so that billionaires are never allowed to
manipulate the bankruptcy system."
The epidemic raged further during the coronavirus pandemic. In
2020, overdose deaths increased by about 30 percent nationwide, and
rose 44 percent in the Berkshires -- the highest level on record,
according to DPH data. North Adams saw the highest increase in the
county.
Bernard said the availability of federal stimulus cash during the
pandemic might have helped fuel the crisis for people who were
isolated and locked down. He said he signed on to this settlement
deal knowing the direct relationship between OxyContin
prescriptions and opioid abuse.
"For many people, the path to deeper substance use and misuse came
through prescriptions and over-prescriptions, [through] the actions
of the companies and their marketing arms," he said.
It turns out that the FDA was one: A year after an FDA examiner
oversaw the approval of OxyContin, he received a $400,000 job at
Purdue, according to the book "Empire of Pain: The Secret History
of the Sackler Dynasty."
Pratt, who filed a claim against Purdue for $5 million, says he
doesn't expect to see a dime of it, but he lodged his claim out of
principle. He is disillusioned by a system that shields
corporations and their actors, he added.
"I feel disappointed and angry that drug dealers in lab coats get
to pay a fine, yet, people that sell drugs on the street go to
jail, and the Sackler family will never be held criminally
responsible," said Pratt, who is a substance abuse counselor and
who founded Rural Recovery Resources in Great Barrington.
"The settlement -- it's a drop in the ocean compared to the fortune
they've made." [GN]
R&R EXPRESS: Rood Suit Wins Rule 23 Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEN ROOD v. R&R EXPRESS,
INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-01223-NR (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge J.
Nicholas Ranjan entered an order that Mr. Rood's Motion for Rule 23
Class Certification and Final Certification under the Fair Labor
Standards Act is granted, as follows:
1. The Court certifies the following class under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3):
"All individuals who at any time during the period between
September 19, 2014 ( i.e., 3 years before the filing of
the original complaint in this action) and December 31,
2017, worked as a Sales Representative (a.k.a. Logistics
Coordinator) for Defendant R&R Express, Inc."
2. The Court appoints Ben Rood to serve as Class
Representative.
3. The Court appoints Joseph H. Chivers of the Employment
Rights Group, LLC (100 First Avenue, Suite 650,
Pittsburgh, PA 15222), and John R. Linkosky, of John
Linkosky & Associates, as Class Counsel for the Rule 23
class.
4. The Court certifies the following FLSA collective:
"All Logistics Coordinators employed by R&R Express, Inc.
from September 19, 2014, through December 31, 2017."
5. The parties shall meet and confer about the form and
content of the class notice. If they reach an agreement,
they must file a joint motion for approval of their
proposed class notice by no later than July 30, 2021. If
the parties cannot reach an agreement, they must file a
joint status report by July 30, 2021, outlining the
parties' respective positions and highlighting any
disagreements.
6. Mr. Rood's Motion to Strike Brief in Opposition is denied,
as moot.
R&R is a leading provider of transportation and logistics
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BQo67C at no extra charge.[CC]
RED BLUFF: Mitchell Sues Over Untimely Payments of Interest Owed
----------------------------------------------------------------
John C. Mitchell, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. Red Bluff Resources Operating, LLC, Case No.
CJ-21-232 (Okla. Dist., Canadian Cty., July 21, 2021) concerns Red
Bluff's willful and ongoing violations of Oklahoma law related to
the interest owed on untimely payments of proceeds derived from the
sale of oil and gas production to those legally entitled thereto.
Oklahoma statute requires operators like Red Bluff to pay the
proceeds derived from the sale of oil and gas production ("O&G
Proceeds") to those legally entitled thereto not later than six
months after the date of first sale of the oil or gas, and
thereafter not later than the last day of the second succeeding
month after the end of the month within which such production is
sold.
The statute further requires operators to pay statutory interest,
compounded annually, when they fail to meet those deadlines. Red
Bluff does not automatically pay the interest it owes on untimely
payments of O&G Proceeds. Instead, it has a policy of only paying
statutory interest when those legally entitled thereto demand it,
despite the fact that no such demand requirement exists.
Plaintiff brings this class action to recover damages for himself
and all similarly situated owners who received untimely payments
from Red Bluff for which it did not pay the interest required by
Oklahoma statute.
Plaintiff Mitchell is an individual and resident of Enid, Oklahoma,
and owns various mineral interests in Canadian County.
Red Bluff owns and operates over 150 oil and gas wells in the State
of Oklahoma, primarily in Canadian, Logan, Kingfisher and Major
Counties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brady L. Smith, Esq.
John Paul Albert, Esq.
NEEDHAM & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
410 N. Walnut Avenue, Suite 110
Oklahoma City, OK 73104
Telephone: (405) 297-0176
E-mail: brady@tnc.energy
jpalbert@tnc.energy
REGIONS BANK: Faces Aguilar Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
REMMY AGUILAR, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REGIONS BANK, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-002066-JMS-TAB (S.D. Ind., July 20, 2021) is a collective
and class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt Banker and Assistant Branch Manager from approximately
February 2017 through August 2020.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated assistant managers, bankers, tellers, head tellers,
financial relationship specialists, and other non-exempt, hourly
paid employees were not properly compensated by the Defendant. The
Defendant allegedly failed to include in its employees' hours
worked the time they spent performing duties, specifically during
pre-shift, post-shift, and meal breaks, as well as the time they
spent for trainings and travels between branches during shifts
while clocked out. As a result, despite working more than 40 hours
per week, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were
not paid their hourly rate of pay for all hours worked and/or
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hors worked in excess of 40 per
workweek.
Regions Bank is a financial institution that provides retail and
commercial banking, trust, stockbrokerage, and mortgage services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert A. Hicks, Esq.
MACEY SWANSON HICKS & SAUER
445 N. Pennsylvania St., Suite 401
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Tel: (317) 637-2345, Ext. 126
Fax: (317) 637-2369
E-mail: rhicks@maceylaw.com
- and –
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Pl Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Tel: (877) 561-0000
Fax: (855) 582-5297
E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
RENOVACARE INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on July 26 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Renovacare,
Inc. (OTC Pink: RCAR) alleging that the Company violated federal
securities laws.
Class Period: August 14, 2017 and May 28, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 14, 2021
No obligation or cost to you.
Learn more about your recoverable losses in RCAR:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/renovacare-inc-loss-submission-form?id=17953&from=5
Renovacare, Inc. NEWS - RCAR NEWS
CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that
Renovacare, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) at the direction of Harmel
Rayat, RenovaCare engaged in a promotional campaign to issue
misleading statements to artificially inflate the Company's stock
price; (2) when the OTC Markets inquired, RenovaCare and Mr. Rayat
issued a materially false and misleading press release claiming
that no director, officer, or controlling shareholder had any
involvement in the purported third party's promotional materials;
(3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's disclosure controls
and procedures were defective; 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.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in Renovacare you have until September 14, 2021 to petition
the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Renovacare securities during the
relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out-of-pocket fees.
HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information
about the RCAR lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click this link.
About Klein Law Firm
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The
Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a
wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and
commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have
achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized
focus. 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]
RENOVACARE INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against RenovaCare,
Inc. ('RenovaCare' or 'the Company') (OTC Pink:RCAR) for violations
of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 14,
2017 and May 28, 2021, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 14, 2021.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. RenovaCare and the Company's controlling
shareholder and Chairman, Harmel Rayat ('Rayat') masterminded a
promotional campaign using misleading statements to inflate the
Company's stock price artificially. When the OTC Markets asked the
Company about its actions, it issued a press release claiming no
director, officer, or controlling shareholder had any involvement
with the promotional materials developed by a supposed third party.
The Company failed to maintain appropriate controls over
disclosure. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading throughout the class period.
When the market learned the truth about RenovaCare, investors
suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
RETAIL EQUATION: Hannum Files FCRA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against THE RETAIL EQUATION,
INC., et al. The case is styled as William Hannum, Sean Frederick,
Olga Maryamchik, Victoria Caruso-Davis, Susana Guevara,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE
RETAIL EQUATION, INC., APPRISS INC., ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC., BEST
BUY PURCHASING LLC, BEST BUY STORES, L.P., BUY BUY BABY, INC.,
CALERES, INC., BG RETAIL, LLC, DICKS SPORTING GOODS, INC., BEST BUY
CO., INC., ADVANCE STORES COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Case No.
2:21-cv-00997-CB (W.D. Pa., July 27, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
The Retail Equation, Inc. -- https://www.theretailequation.com/ --
develops retail transaction optimization solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
361 W. Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
Phone: (610) 642-8500
Fax: (610) 649-3633
Email: bfj@chimicles.com
RITE AID: Faces Staff Class Action Over Uniform Purchase Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Rite Aid is sparring in a California federal
court with a class of 26000 workers fighting for damages over the
company's alleged policy of making employees purchase their own
uniforms, with the sides arguing in opposing motions over whether
the class's expert evidence should give the workers an early win or
cost them their certification. [GN]
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Garcia Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JULIAN GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES,
INC., ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, INC., and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. RG20061917, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on July 22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00864-NJ to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to reimburse
employment expenses and violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law.
Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc. is a truck freight
transportation services provider, with its principal place of
business in Wisconsin.
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. is a provider of truck
freight transportation services, with its principal place of
business in Illinois. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 795-4700
Facsimile: (626) 795-4790
E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com
- and –
Adam C. Smedstad, Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
3214 West McGraw Street, Suite 301F
Seattle, WA 98199
Telephone: (206) 288-6192
Facsimile: (206) 299-9375
E-mail: asmedstad@scopelitis.com
- and –
James A. Eckhart, Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
10 West Market Street, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 637-1777
Facsimile: (317) 687-2414
E-mail: jeckhart@scopelitis.com
ROBLOX CORP: Fails to Issue Refunds for Deleted Content, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
A.B., a minor, represented by her mother and next friend, AUDREY
BURTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, Case No. 3:21-cv-05683 (N.D. Cal., July 23,
2021) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against Roblox on
behalf of herself and other similarly situated Roblox users by
asserting claims for violations of the California's Unfair
Competition Law and the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
as well as breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Roblox is an online, multiplayer virtual creation platform where
users play games that were created, along with its for-sale
content, by other users. Roblox is predominantly used by children
and saw a huge surge in usage from children during the COVID-19
pandemic. According to the company, as of April 2020, two-thirds of
all children in the United States between ages 9 and 12 used
Roblox, and Roblox was played by a third of all Americans under the
age of 16.
Roblox is initially free to join and download. Users can then
purchase "Robux" which is the in-game currency that allows its
users to make in-game purchases. Roblox's revenue is dependent upon
user-created content, boasting more than 8 million developers and
more than 15 million developers releasing monthly content from the
Roblox Studio. Users purchase content from Roblox's Avatar Shop,
which is the user-to-user marketplace, to personalize their avatars
and gaming experience. Roblox takes a commission from the
user-to-user transaction and generates revenue from these sales.
Roblox has the ability and retains discretion to delete content
from its users' inventories, without notice, even after the items
have been purchased. Roblox does not provide refunds for the
content it removes and retains the money it earns as commissions
through those sales, says the suit.
This is the result of Roblox's alleged lax control policies and
practices - both by allowing potentially inappropriate or
infringing products to be added to its Avatar Shop and sold to
users, as well as a failure to have a refund policy in place so
that users can be reimbursed for content lost or deleted due to
circumstances out of their control. In essence, Roblox makes
content available for purchase on the Roblox Avatar Shop without
adequately scrutinizing the content to ensure that it complies with
Roblox's policies. If Roblox later determines that the content
violates its policies (e.g., includes a trademarked logo), Roblox
will delete the content. Rather than performing adequate oversight
before content is offered for sale in its marketplace, Roblox waits
until items are purchased, collects commissions, and then deletes
the content. Roblox keeps its commissions and associated revenue,
yet refuses to refund its users for the deleted content.
This "sell without regard to users" approach unfairly benefits
Roblox because it allows Roblox to retain all monetary benefit
after deleting content. Users, who are predominantly children, are
left with nothing. Users are then forced make new purchases to
replace their items, on which Roblox then collects additional
commissions.
On June 2, 2021, Audrey Burton, acting on behalf of Plaintiff A.B.
and all others similarly situated, sent a pre-suit demand to Roblox
to immediately address its unlawful and unfair practice of deleting
content purchased by users from its platform and failing to issue
refunds for that content. In her letter, Ms. Burton requested an
Injunctive Relief.
Plaintiff A.B. is a resident of the state of Virginia. The
Plaintiff is a Roblox account holder who has used Roblox for the
last two to three years. She spent approximately 200 dollars to
purchase items from Roblox's store, Avatar Shop and/or Game Shop
only to then experience the deletion of many of the purchased items
from her inventory. Since opening her current account in September
of 2020, approximately seven shirts and fifteen pairs of pants have
been deleted without refund. When Plaintiff purchased items, there
was an expectation that the items would remain in her inventory.
She would not have purchased the items had she known that they
would later be deleted and she would not receive a refund for the
content.
Roblox Corporation is a Delaware Corporation with its principal
place of business located at 970 Park Place, San Mateo, California
94403. Roblox regularly conducts business in this District and
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
388 Market Street, Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 373-1671
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: aapton@zlk.com
- and -
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
cmaccarone@zlk.com
SANCTUARY LOFTS: Berry Sues Over Lease Agreement in Ill. Cir. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTIN BERRY on behalf of herself and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. SANCTUARY LOFTS, LLC, Case No. 130675878 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Hillsborough Cty., July 14, 2021) is an action for damages
more than $30,000, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney's
fees.
Defendant Sanctuary Loftsis a Florida corporation with its
principal place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Plaintiff Berry is a resident of Broward County, Florida and is
otherwise sui juris. The Plaintiff lived in a residential building
which is maintained and managed by Defendant and is located at 502
E. Ross Ave., Tampa, Florida
The Defendant is both the owner and management company that governs
the Property.
On or about June 26, 2020, the Plaintiff and Defendant entered into
a lease agreement for the rental of the property located at 502 E.
Ross Ave., Unit 208, Tampa, Florida.
The subject lease was executed by the parties as Defendant had
recently purchased the Property. The Plaintiff had lived at the
Property for several years. At all times material to this
Complaint, Plaintiff resided in the Property.
On June 17, 2020 notified Defendant of a mold condition in the
Plaintiff's Unit which is located within the Property. Water damage
is unhealthy in general and for reasons, including but not limited
to, the following, water damage leads to amplification of dust
mites, bacteria, and microbial contamination, as well as other
mechanisms. These conditions, including fungal contamination, were
caused by excessive moisture and water damage, which were not the
fault of Plaintiff, and such conditions rendered the Property
uninhabitable, says the suit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian J. Holland, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN HOLLAND, P.A.
300 SW 1st Avenue, Suite 155
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone (954) 283-4864
E-mail: Holland@BrianHollandLaw.com
SANDHILLS MEDICAL: Ford Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joanne Ford, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Sandhills Medical Foundation Inc., Case No.
2021-CP-13-00399 was removed from the Chesterfield County Court of
Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina on July 26, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-02307-RBH to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for the Federal Tort
Claims Act.
Sandhills Medical Foundation, Inc. -- http://sandhillsmedical.org/
-- is a Health Center Program.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dylan Artell Bess, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN ATLANTA PLLC
PO Box 57007
Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
Phone: (404) 965-1886
Email: dbess@forthepeople.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jessica Lerer Fickling, Esq.
Joseph Preston Strom, Jr., Esq.
STROM LAW FIRM LLC
6923 N Trenholm Road, Suite 200
Columbia, SC 29206
Phone: (803) 252-4800
Fax: (803) 252-4801
Email: jfickling@stromlaw.com
petestrom@stromlaw.com
- and -
Michael D Wright, Esq.
Vincent A Sheheen, Esq.
SAVAGE ROYALL AND SHEHEEN
PO Drawer 10
Camden, SC 29020
Phone: (803) 432-4391
Email: mwright@thesavagefirm.com
vsheheen@thesavagefirm.com
SCRIPPS HEALTH: Lahrmann Sues Over Failure to Protect Private Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, STEFANIE LAHRMANN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCRIPPS HEALTH, a
California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No.
37-2021-00031510-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Sup. Ct., July 22, 2021) arises
from the Defendant's alleged violation of the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action asserting
that the Defendant has illegally disclosed her and other similarly
situated patients and customers' private and confidential personal
information because it was hacked during the ransomware attack that
hit the local health care giant on May 1, 2021, which the Defendant
has announced on June 1, 2021. The Defendant allegedly mishandled
its patients and customers personal medical information that was
recorded onto the Defendant's computer network by failing to
properly protect from access, disclosure, and/or actual viewing by
unauthorized person or persons, thereby violated California Civil
Code Section 56.101.
Scripps Health is a medical provider. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
7817 Ivanhoe Ave., Suite 102
La Jolla, CA 92037
Tel: (858) 914-2001
Fax: (858) 914-2002
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Faces Kant Suit Over Union Dues Deductions
-------------------------------------------------------------
ATISHMA KANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL
721; and ROB BONTA in his official capacity as Attorney General of
California, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-01153 (C.D. Cal., July 9,
2021) seeks to recover the Plaintiff's unconstitutionally seized
wages and to vindicate her First Amendment rights as recognized by
the United States Supreme Court.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, she files an action
against a government employer and abusive legislation which
rendered her mute and marginalized as Service Employees
International, Local 721 ("SEIU") leveraged its considerably
unequal power against her to not only garnish her paychecks without
consent for years, but also to brazenly reserve the right to extend
those continued seizures into the indefinite future.
On July 11, 2019, the Plaintiff informed SEIU via certified mail
that she does not affirmatively consent to the continued withdrawal
of her lawfully earned wages and demanded that the union
"immediately cease deducting all dues, fees, and political
contributions." On July 31, 2019, the Plaintiff sent a Cease and
Desist letter to SEIU via certified mail. In that letter she
demanded that SEIU communicate to the Employer that she was no
longer a member of SEIU and had withdrawn her consent for the dues
deductions. Exhibit F.
On August 14, 2019, SEIU wrote a letter acknowledging receipt of
the Cease and Desist letter, stating that the matter was under
investigation and that the Plaintiff would receive a response no
later than August 30, 2019. SEIU did not respond to the Cease and
Desist letter on August 30, 2019, or any other time, says the
suit.
Allegedly, SEIU did not direct the Employer to stop deducting union
dues from her earnings and remitting them to SEIU. To date, the
Plaintiff's present employer continues to deduct monies from her
paycheck and remit them to SEIU.
Service Employees International Union - Local 721 CTW CLC is a
labor unions, organization in Los Angeles, CA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elena Ives, Esq.
Shella Sadovnik, Esq.
FREEDOM FOUNDATION
PO Box 552
Olympia, WA 98507
Telephone: (360) 956-3482
Facsimile: (360) 352-1874
E-mail: eives@freedomfoundation.com
ssadovnik@freedomfoundation.com
SGE MANAGEMENT: Court Resolves Fee Dispute in Torres Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles Eskridge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, issued an order resolving the
fee dispute between the counsel who brought and litigated the case,
JUAN RAMON TORRES, et al., Plaintiffs v. SGE MANAGEMENT, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:09-cv-02056 (S.D. Tex.).
Background
The case is a fee dispute between the counsel who brought and
litigated the action. They ultimately obtained good results for
their clients through a settlement reached in October 2018. The
dispute over fees has toiled on, being now on remand from the Fifth
Circuit for a closer review of factors as directed in Torres v. SGE
Management, LLC, 945 Fad 347 (5th Cir 2019).
The Plaintiffs initially retained Jeffrey Burnett and the eponymous
firm of Jeffery W. Burnett, PLLC to bring claims against the
Defendants for creating a multi-level marketing program that they
alleged was a fraudulent pyramid scheme. Burnett in turn hired
Scott Clearman and his eponymous firm of The Clearman Law Firm LLP
to initiate a class action against the Defendants pursuant to the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. They agreed to
split any fees, with Burnett receiving 25% and Clearman receiving
75%.
Clearman later formed Clearman Prebeg LLP with Matthew Prebeg and
thereafter assigned his former firm's fee interest to his new firm.
Andrew Kochanowski of Sommers Schwartz, PC also eventually joined
the case as class counsel. All counsel then entered into a new fee
agreement under which Clearman Prebeg would receive 60% of any fees
(to be split among its four partners) while Burnett and Sommers
Schwartz would each receive 20%.
Clearman unfortunately began to experience issues associated with
substance abuse at some point in 2011. The various counsel dispute
the extent of his involvement in the case thereafter. But it's
apparent that the relationship between Clearman and fellow counsel
(including his law partner, Prebeg) fractured and remains in a
state of disrepair.
Three partners eventually left Clearman Prebeg to form Prebeg,
Faucett & Abbott, PLLC in January 2014. That same month Judge
Kenneth Hoyt certified the class and named Clearman, Kochanowski,
and Prebeg as co-class counsel. The latter two engaged Goldstein &
Russell to defend the class certification on appeal. The various
counsel (excluding Clearman) then entered into a further amended
fee arrangement in June 2014 under which Goldstein & Russell would
receive between 16% and 18% of the total fee award (depending on
the size) and Burnett would receive another 17% of the total. The
remainder of any fee award was to be divided amongst Prebeg,
Faucett & Abbott (51.99%), Sommers Schwartz (30.67%), and Clearman
(17.34%).
The class action eventually settled, with class members able to
choose between two options as consideration for releasing their
claims. One was a cash option, by which class members could
receive 20% of the difference between the amount they paid to the
Defendants and the amount that Defendants paid them. The other was
a benefits option, by which class members could receive a number of
benefits relating to (among others) referral payments, conference
admissions, and reinstatement into the Defendants' sales program.
Judge Hoyt also ultimately awarded $9,816,633 in fees to the
counsel for the Plaintiffs collectively, subject to allocation.
Clearman sought to recover fully one-half of this award. Judge
Hoyt instead allocated him $1,505,223 in fees in a November 2018
order. Clearman moved for reconsideration several weeks later,
which Judge Hoyt denied the same day.
Clearman filed a notice of appeal in December 2018 as to the fee
allocation. Plaintiffs Kochanowski and Prebeg (along with their
respective firms), Burnett, and Thomas Goldstein and Eric Citron
(along with their firm) filed a cross-appeal, urging that the
allocation was appropriate and that the appeal should be dismissed.
They argued in the alternative that Clearman shouldn't be
allocated any fees, but that if he received any, he should receive
"no more than $840,000 in fees and costs."
The Fifth Circuit vacated the award and remanded "for elaboration
of the trial court's reasoning under the Johnson framework."
Clearman moved to recuse Judge Hoyt from the proceedings on remand,
who did so on March 6, 2020. The action was then reassigned to the
Court.
Various counsel immediately tiled voluminous post-remand motions
regarding the dispute over attorney fees. But remand in no way
required a new record. Instead, each class member and associated
class counsel were ordered to file a brief addressing their
positions under the Johnson framework as to the material originally
filed before Judge Hoyt. The pending motions were all denied as
moot.
Clearman filed a brief arguing that he should receive between 35%
and 50% of the fee. Citron and Burnett tiled a brief arguing that
the latter and his firm should receive 17% of the fee (totaling
$1,662,724.72 in fees and expenses) while the former and his firm
should receive 18% of the first $5 million, 17% of the next $3
million, and 16% of the remainder (totaling $1,703,182.65 in fees
and expenses). And Kochanowski and Prebeg filed a brief arguing
that the former and his firm should be awarded $2,532,151.80 in
fees and $184,347.26 in expenses while the latter and his firm
should be awarded $3,164,170.00 in fees and $187,557.38 in
expenses. Kochanowski and Prebeg say that Citron and Burnett
should be awarded the fees they request while Clearman, if he is to
receive any fees, "is at most" entitled to $840,866.25 after all
other counsel have been paid.
The Court eventually heard oral argument, with all relevant counsel
appearing and articulating their respective positions on the fee
dispute.
Analysis
Judge Hoyt used the percentage method. This requires the court to
establish a reasonable attorney-fee award upon consideration and
weighing of 12 factors as set out by the Fifth Circuit in Johnson v
Georgia Highway Express, Inc, being: first, the time and labor
involved; second, the novelty and difficulty of the questions;
third, the skill requisite to perform the legal services properly;
fourth, the preclusion of other employment due to the case; fifth,
the customary fee; sixth, whether the fee is fixed or contingent;
seventh, time limitations; eighth, the amount involved and results
obtained; ninth, the experience, reputation, and ability of
counsel; tenth, the undesirability of the case; eleventh, the
nature and length of the professional relationship with the client;
and twelfth, awards in similar cases.
Judge Eskridge finds as to the Johnson factors that:
a. Factor one weighs most heavily in favor of Prebeg and his
firm, followed by Kochanowski and his firm, Burnett and his firm,
Citron and his firm, and finally Clearman and his firm;
b. Factor four doesn't weigh in favor of any counsel or firm,
but it does slightly disfavor Clearman;
c. Factor seven weighs in favor of Citron and slightly in
favor of Burnett, but not in favor of any other counsel;
d. Factor eight weighs in favor of all counsel except for
Clearman;
e. Factor eleven weighs in favor of Burnett and against
Clearman, and is neutral as to Prebeg, Kochanowski, Citron, and
their respective firms; and
f. Factors two, three, five, six; nine, ten, and twelve don't
weigh in favor of any counsel as compared to any other.
To be clear, Judge Eskridge opines that none of the Johnson factors
independently and affirmatively establish that Clearman is entitled
to a fee award most heavily weighted in his favor. And nothing
comes close to supporting an allocation to him of 50% of the
overall fee. The very contention borders on frivolous.
As to the appropriate allocation, this means that's a matter
devoted more to experience, rather than any precise metric of logic
or statistics. And in that view, the fee award by judge Hoyt --
who dealt with counsel and the litigation from inception to its
conclusion after settlement -- was correct. A lesser award to
Clearman certainly wouldn't have been surprising, given his failure
to maintain and present any reasonable account of his time, along
with his inability to continue on with the litigation during and
after class certification. But then again, the award by Judge Hoyt
in fact reflected a steep discount as against the amount requested
by Clearman and his hours presented.
Having now reviewed all materials before Judge Hoyt when making his
original fee award, and also having considered each of the factors
outlined in Johnson v Georgia Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714 (5th
Cir 1974), attorney fees are awarded as follows:
a. $3,010,428 in fees and $187,557 in expenses to Matthew John
Prebeg of Prebeg Faucett Abbott PLLC;
b. $1,766,994 in fees and $184,347 in expenses to Andrew Jack
Kochanowski of Sommers Schwartz PC;
c. $1,963,327 in fees and $975 in expenses to Jeffrey West
Burnett of Jeffrey W. Burnett PLLC;
d. $1,570,661 in fees and $5,183 in expenses to Eric Franklin
Citron of Goldstein & Russell, PC; and
e. $1,505,223 in fees and $80,305 in expenses to Scott Monroe
Clearman of The Clearman Law Firm, PLLC.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 16, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/44mvm5mp from Leagle.com.
SILVERADO SENIOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bonwell Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AIREEN BONWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT, INC., A
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21CV384595 (Cal. Sup. Ct., July 22, 2021) brings this class action
complaint to challenge the Defendants' alleged systemic illegal
employment practices that violated the California Labor Code and
the applicable Wage Orders of the Industrial and Welfare
Commission.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a RN Case Manager
from on or about November 1, 2020 until on or about June 28, 2021.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to provide her and
other similarly situated Rn Case Managers with accurate itemized
wage statements every time wages are paid to them. Specifically,
the Defendants failed to identify the correct rates of pay and
applicable number of hours for such wages.
Silverado Senior Living Management, Inc. provides assisted living
communities and services to patients with dementia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 488-6555
Fax: (213) 488-6554
E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
- and –
William L. Marder, Esq.
POLARIS LAW GROUP
501 San Benito St., Suite 200
Hollister, CA 95023
Tel: (831) 531-4214
Fax: (831) 634-0333
E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com
- and –
Edward W. Choi, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 381-1515
Fax: (213) 465-4885
E-mail: Edward.choi@choiandassociates.com
SIMS GROUP: Sanft Must File Class Cert. Bid by August 20
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAEA SANFT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SIMS GROUP USA
CORPORATION dba SIMS METAL MANAGEMENT, a California, Case No.
4:19-cv-08154-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered
an order adopting the parties joint stipulation to modify the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and briefing schedule as
follows:
-- Plaintiff to file motion for August 20, 2021
class certification:
-- Defendant to file Opposition; and October 22, 2021:
-- Plaintiff to file Reply December 3, 2021:
The Court is unlikely to grant further continuances absent exigent
circumstances.
Sims Group operates as a holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3l0fN37 at no extra charge.[CC]
SPARC GROUP: Lisner Suit Moved From Superior Court to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Janette Lisner, et al. v.
SPARC Group LLC, et al., Case No. 21STCV20847, was removed the
California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles) on July 14, 2021.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-05713-AB-GJS to the proceeding.
The lawsuit arises from alleged fraud and is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Andre Birotte Jr.
Sparc Group LLC, doing business as Aeropostale, retails apparel and
accessories. The Defendants include Does 1-5, inclusive.[BN]
Plaintiffs Janette Lisner, James Andrews and Jennifer Quiroz Nunez,
for Themselves, as Private Attorneys General, and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, are represented by:
Daniel Morley Kekoa Hattis, Esq.
Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
HATTIS AND LUKACS
400 108th Avenue NE Suite 500
Bellevue, WA 98004
Telephone: (425) 233-8650
Facsimile: (425) 412-7171
E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com
pkl@hattislaw.com
Defendants SPARC Group LLC formerly known as: Aero OpCo LLC, and
Aero Operations LLC are represented by:
Stephanie A. Sheridan, Esq.
Anthony J. Anscombe, Esq.
Meegan Bay Brooks, Esq.
STEPTOE AND JOHNSON LLP
Spear Tower
One Market Plaza Suite 3900
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 365-6700
Facsimile: (415) 365-6699
E-mail: ssheridan@steptoe.com
aanscombe@steptoe.com
mbrooks@steptoe.com
ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARTURO STEVEZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE, Case No. 1:21-cv-06222 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 21, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully and
equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually impaired people.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, https://www.sjcny.edu/, and therefore
denial of its products and services offered thereby and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Because the Defendant's Website is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually impaired consumers, resulting in violation of
the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so
that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition blindness in that they have a visual
acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some
blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others
have no vision.
The Defendant offers the commercial website,
https://www.sjcny.edu/, to the public. The website offers features
which should allow all prospective students to access the services
offered by the Defendant. The services offered by Defendant
include, but are not limited to, the following: which allow
students the ability to take courses online, to pay tuition and
other costs online, apply for payment plans, and apply for
admissions online, as well as information relating to course
offerings, financial aid, cost of tuition, majors, and other
services available online and other general information about
attending the college.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
STABLE ROAD: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of September 13 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on July 26 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California captioned Hall v. Stable
Road Acquisition Corp., et al., (Case No. 21-5943) on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Stable
Road Acquisition Corp. ("Stable Road" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
SRAC, SRACW, SRACU) securities between October 7, 2020 and July 13,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have until September 13,
2021 to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action.
Stable Road is a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC").
Momentus Inc. ("Momentus") is currently a private company.
On October 7, 2020, Momentus announced that it had signed a
definitive merger agreement with Stable Road, resulting in Momentus
becoming a publicly traded entity. The transaction was initially
valued at $1.13 billion, but was later cut to $466.6 million in
June 2021 due to delays in the company's first commercial launch.
On January 4, 2021, Stable Road revealed that Momentus's January
2021 launch would be "remanifest[ed] . . . to a subsequent launch
opportunity in 2021" because the company needed additional time to
obtain the necessary regulatory approvals.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.71, or 9.5%, over
two consecutive trading sessions to close at $16.25 per share on
January 5, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
On January 25, 2021, Momentus announced that Kokorich had resigned
from the company. The press release also stated that Momentus, in
consultation with Stable Road "determined that accepting Mr.
Kokorich's resignation is in the best interest of the Company, in
an effort to expedite the resolution of U.S. government national
security and foreign ownership concerns surrounding the Company,
the existence of which the Company has recently confirmed."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $4.75, or 19%, over
three consecutive trading sessions to close at $20.10 per share on
January 27, 2021.
On May 24, 2021, Stable Road disclosed that Momentus "does not
expect to fly any missions in 2021" because it was still securing
regulatory approvals.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.61, or
approximately 14%, to close at $10.42 per share on May 24, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
On July 13, 2021, after market hours, the SEC announced a
settlement for penalties exceeding $8 million with Stable Road; its
sponsor SRC-NI; Stable Road's Chief Executive Officer, Brian Kabot;
and its merger target Momentus. The charges relate to misleading
claims about Momentus's technology and about national security
risks associated with Mikhail Kokorich ("Kokorich"), Momentus's
founder and former CEO. According to the SEC's charges, Stable Road
had repeated Momentus's misleading claims that it had
"‘successfully tested' its propulsion technology in space when,
in fact, the company's only in-space test had failed to achieve its
primary mission objectives or demonstrate the technology's
commercial viability."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.20, or over 10%, to
close at $10.68 per share on July 14, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Momentus had only conducted a single in-space
test, which did not meet any of Momentus's pre-launch evaluation
criteria, thus the company had not "successfully tested" its
technology; (2) that the sole in-space test conducted by Momentus
was never designed to test the commercial viability of the
company's thrusters; (3) that, as a result, Momentus's progress in
commercializing its technology was significantly overstated; (4)
that Kokorich had been informed that the U.S. Government considered
him to be a "threat" that caused his affiliation with another space
technology company to be a risk to national security; (5) that,
because Kokorich was considered a national security risk, Momentus
would face challenges obtaining the necessary licenses and
approvals for its commercial launches; (6) that, as a result,
Kokorich's affiliation with Momentus jeopardized, among other
things, the company's launch schedule and revenue projections which
were based on assumptions about the timing of the company's first
commercial launch; (7) that Stable Road had not conducted adequate
due diligence, including as it relates to Momentus's testing
progress and national security concerns with Momentus's CEO; (8)
that, as a result of the failure to disclose the foregoing, Stable
Road was reasonably likely to face regulatory scrutiny; and (9)
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.
If you purchased Stable Road securities during the Class Period,
you may move the Court no later than September 13, 2021 to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you purchased Stable Road securities, have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
STOCKTON GOLF: Salcedo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stockton Golf and
Country Club. The case is styled as Diego Salcedo, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated v. Stockton Golf and Country Club, an unknown business
entity, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0007077 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., July 27, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Stockton Golf and Country Club -- https://www.stocktongolfcc.com/
-- is a Golf club in Country Club, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 818-265-1020
Fax: 818-265-1021
SUN PACIFIC: Castanon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sun Pacific Shippers,
L.P. The case is styled as Eva Banuelos Castanon, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Sun Pacific Shippers,
L.P., a California Limited Partnership, Case No. BCV-21-101708
(Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., July 27, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Sun Pacific Shippers -- https://sunpacific.com/ -- is a human
resources company based out of Los Angeles California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Isandra Y. Fernandez, Esq.
10045 SW 111th St
Miami, FL 33176-3462
Phone: 305-439-7872
Fax: 305-270-3203
SURGICAL DISCOUNTERS: Faces Katz Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BRUCE KATZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SURGICAL DISCOUNTERS LLC; DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-01208 (C.D.
Cal., July 20, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged negligent
and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff
on his facsimile number ending in -9502 beginning on or around
October 28, 2020 in an effort to sell or solicit its services. The
Plaintiff asserts that he was not a customer of the Defendant, and
has never provided any personal information to the Defendant nor
his "prior express consent" to receive calls using a telephone
facsimile machine.
As a result of the Defendant's alleged unsolicited calls, the
Plaintiff has incurred charge for incoming messages. Thus, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action against the
Defendant seeking for statutory damages and treble damages, as well
as an injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant's unlawful
conduct in the future, and other relief that the Court deems just
and proper.
Surgical Discounters LLC is a marketer of medical products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
SUTTER HEALTH: Judge Set to Approve Antitrust Case Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Gold, writing for Capradio, reports that more than 18 months
after Sutter Health agreed to a tentative settlement in a closely
watched antitrust case joined by the California Attorney General's
Office, the judge presiding over the case indicated she would sign
off on the terms, pending agreement on attorney fees. The nonprofit
health care giant, based in Sacramento, stood accused of violating
California's antitrust laws by using its market dominance to drive
up prices.
The settlement is expected to have nationwide implications on how
hospital systems negotiate prices with insurers.
"These plaintiffs are among the first, but will not be the last, to
successfully challenge dominant health care systems who undertake
land grabs to mark up prices at the expense of patients and
employers," Leemore Dafny, a Harvard Business School professor who
studies the industry, wrote in an email. "This settlement has
provided a marker for the rest of the nation."
The settlement, which includes $575 million in damages, was
announced on a preliminary basis in December 2019. It marked a
dramatic turn in a long-running legal battle initiated in 2014 as a
class-action lawsuit filed by the United Food and Commercial
Workers International Union & Employers Benefit Trust, representing
employers, unions and local governments whose workers use Sutter
services. Then-Attorney General Xavier Becerra joined the case in
2018.
Numerous twists and turns have slowed the court's approval of the
settlement in the months since.
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo had been
expected to issue a preliminary approval of the terms in August
2020, but rejected the independent monitor the parties had chosen
to oversee the rollout of the agreement. The monitor chosen was
neither a woman nor a person of color, and Massullo said the
parties' selection process did not properly take into account the
court's emphasis on diversity, equity and inclusion.
More months passed as Sutter argued for further delays and
suggested it would push to alter the settlement in light of the
potentially dramatic effects of the covid-19 pandemic on the health
care system's finances and operations.
Preliminary approval was eventually granted, but most recently,
final approval was postponed because of a dispute between UEBT and
their lawyers over attorney fees. The parties had agreed earlier to
plaintiffs' attorneys, led by Richard Grossman of Pillsbury &
Coleman, getting 30% of the settlement amount. Given the size of
the settlement, that comes to $172.5 million in attorney fees, a
figure UEBT now argues is unreasonably high.
An additional 2% in fees will go to the Attorney General's Office.
UEBT expects to receive about $15 million, and what is left of the
$575 million will be distributed among the rest of the class, made
up of other unions and employers who purchase health insurance for
their workers.
The July 21 hearing was largely devoted to a tense back-and-forth
over the attorney fees. Ultimately, the hearing concluded without
resolution on the issue. But Massullo indicated she would approve
the terms of the settlement in a written order once the fees had
been sorted out. The timing of that final order was left unclear.
Sutter has 23 hospitals, 33 surgery centers and 12,000 physicians
across Northern California, with $13 billion in operating revenue
in 2020. Among other allegations, the state's lawsuit argued Sutter
has aggressively bought up hospitals and physician practices
throughout the Bay Area and the rest of Northern California, and
exploited that market dominance for profit.
Health care costs in Northern California are 20% to 30% higher than
in Southern California, even after adjusting for the cost of
living, according to a 2018 study from the Nicholas C. Petris
Center at the University of California-Berkeley that was cited in
the complaint.
Among other terms, the settlement requires Sutter to:
* Limit what it charges patients for out-of-network services.
* Increase transparency by allowing insurers and employers to
give patients pricing information.
* Cease bundling services and products, and instead offer
stand-alone pricing.
In agreeing to the settlement, Sutter did not admit wrongdoing.
Throughout the proceedings, it has maintained that its integrated
health system offers tangible benefits for patients, including
affordable rates and consistent high-quality care. Sutter
spokesperson Amy Thoma Tan said in an email that the settlement
would not reduce the quality of patient care.
"Our commitment to providing high-quality care to our patients is
unwavering, and independent data shows that our quality yields
better health outcomes and a lower total cost of care," she wrote.
"Sutter's quality of care is nationally recognized, with the
majority of our hospitals and facilities outperforming state and
national averages in nearly every measure of quality."
Still, under the terms of the settlement, Sutter agreed to end a
host of practices that Becerra, who now heads the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, alleged unfairly stifled competition.
Among other conditions, the settlement also requires Sutter to
limit what it charges patients for out-of-network services and end
its all-or-nothing contracting deals with payers, which demanded
that an insurer that wanted to include any one of the Sutter
hospitals or clinics in its network must include all of them.
Sutter has earned an average 42% annual profit margin over the past
decade from medical treatments paid for by commercial insurers like
the plaintiff companies, according to a recent analysis by Glenn
Melnick, a health care economist at the University of Southern
California.
Sutter also faces a second federal class-action lawsuit alleging
anti-competitive behavior. But while Sutter remains in the
crosshairs, its practices are not unique. Experts say negotiating
tactics including all-or-nothing contracts and anti-tiering
provisions have become widespread among hospital systems
nationwide.
"Any system could change their practices tomorrow. If we have to
wait for the courts to force them to not use anti-competitive
practices, that's really disappointing," said Elizabeth Mitchell,
CEO of the Purchaser Business Group on Health, which represents
employers that buy insurance coverage for their workers.
"What the Sutter case proves is that the people who pay for and
receive care can achieve accountability from the health care
system. But it shouldn't be that hard."
This story was produced by KHN (Kaiser Health News), a national
newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.
Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three
major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is
an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health
issues to the nation.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces
in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy
Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating
programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed
nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to
the nation. [GN]
T&T FARMS: Porter Balks at Misleading Business Opportunity Program
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL PORTER, an individual, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. T&T FARMS, INC., an Indiana
Corporation; and THOMAS HALLECK, JR., an individual, Case No.
3:21-cv-00529 (N.D. Ind., July 23, 2021) is a class action lawsuit
brought against trucking company T&T Farms and its owner Thomas
Halleck arising out of T&T Farms' "lease-driver" business
opportunity program (the "Driving Opportunity") whereby certain of
its truck drivers ("Drivers") leased trucks from T&T Farms and
simultaneously agreed to provide driving services to T&T Farms
utilizing such trucks.
The Drivers are licensed commercial drivers responsible for safely
operating a commercial vehicle and transporting T&T Farms'
customers' cargo.
Plaintiff Porter and the members of the putative Class ("Drivers")
are current and former Drivers for T&T Farms.
When selling the Driving Opportunity to Drivers, T&T Farms
allegedly made uniform factual misrepresentations and failed to
disclose material facts about the economics of the Driving
Opportunity, the income, and the overall material terms and
conditions the Driving Opportunity did and would provide in order
to induce Drivers to purchase the Driving Opportunity.
T&T Farms thus defrauded the Drivers into paying for the bulk of
the expenses of transporting goods for T&T Farms' customers
including such items as truck lease payments, trailer lease
payments, gas, maintenance, computers, insurance, and other
expenses associated with the Driving Opportunity. After paying such
expenses, the Drivers often had little or no compensation or
sometimes even owed T&T Farms money despite the long hours they
worked as Drivers, says the suit.
In connection with the offer, sale, and/or operation of the Driving
Opportunity, T&T Farms and/or Halleck have allegedly (1) violated
the federal Truth-in-Leasing Regulations; (2) violated the Indiana
Business Opportunity Transactions Act; (3) violated the Indiana
Wage Payment Statute; (4) violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA); (5) committed constructive fraud; and (6) breached the
applicable contracts and implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.
Porter was a Driver from approximately March 2020 to early February
2021. Porter seeks to certify an appropriate class action under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that will assert
claims under laws of the Indiana and a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Porter seeks damages, declaratory, equitable, and injunctive
relief, as well as available attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of
himself and the Drivers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Facsimile: (317) 636-2495
E-mail: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
Robert S. Boulter, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF
ROBERT S. BOULTER
1101 5th Ave No. 310
San Rafael, CA 94901
Telephone: (415) 233-7100
E-mail: rsb@boulter-law.com
TRANSUNION: Baker Sterchi Attorney Discusses FCRA Suit Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Stumph-Turner, Esq., of Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC, in
an article for Lexology, reports that in an impactful and split
Opinion, the United States Supreme Court has reversed a $40 million
class action judgment award in light of its finding that thousands
of class members had no standing for two of three Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA") claims, and that the majority of those class
members lacked standing for the remaining claim.
As we advised in our December 2020 Financial Services Law Blog
post, the Ramirez case, filed in the Northern District of
California, arose when Mr. Ramirez faced an alarming situation at a
car dealership: he was denied financing for a car loan due to an
erroneous credit report alert indicating that he was listed on an
OFAC advisor "terrorist list." Although Mr. Ramirez' wife was able
to obtain approval to purchase the car, Mr. Ramirez later received
a letter from TransUnion indicating that he was listed as a
"prohibited Specially Designated National (SDN)." TransUnion
removed the alert after Mr. Ramirez disputed the designation.
It was later learned that 8,185 other individuals had been falsely
labeled as prohibited SDNs. Although only 1,853 of those
individuals' credit reports were furnished to potential creditors
during the relevant time period, all 8,185 individuals were
certified as class members and found by the lower courts to have
Article III standing.
Mr. Ramirez filed suit on behalf of himself and the 8,185 class
members, asserting that TransUnion failed to follow reasonable
procedures to ensure the accuracy of credit files, and that it
failed to provide consumers with complete credit files and a
summary of rights upon request of the consumer. At trial, the jury
awarded approximately $1,000 in statutory damages and $6,300 in
punitive damages per class member. The Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals held that the class members all had standing but reduced
the punitive damages award by roughly 50% on the basis that it was
excessive. Now, the Supreme Court has reversed the judgment
altogether.
The Supreme Court began its Opinion by citing the longstanding
principle that, in order to have standing, claimants must have
suffered a "concrete harm" that resulted from the defendant's
conduct and that is capable of being redressed by the Court.
Applying this standard to the "reasonable procedures" claim, the
Court first found that the 1,853 plaintiffs whose credit reports
were provided to third parties did suffer a concrete harm similar
to the type of reputational harm that would be caused by a
defamatory statement. The remaining 6,332 class members, on the
other hand, suffered no such harm because the false information was
not "published," or furnished, to any third parties. The Court
reasoned that the harm suffered from false information stored in a
credit file would be similar to an insulting letter that sat in the
author's desk drawer -- nonexistent.
The Court then considered whether any of the 8,185 unnamed class
members had standing to assert their claims for failure to provide
complete credit files and a summary of rights upon request.
Plaintiffs did not demonstrate that TransUnion's potentially faulty
mailings caused any harm at all to plaintiffs. Therefore, the Court
found there was no standing under Spokeo because these mere
technical violations were "divorced from any concrete harm." The
Court rejected any argument by plaintiffs that there was a threat
of future harm for any of the asserted claims.
The Opinion was bookended with this simple phrase, penned by
Justice Kavanaugh: "No concrete harm, no standing." And with that,
the $40 million judgment out of the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and
the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with the Supreme
Court's findings concerning standing.
The Court was split 5-4, and Justice Thomas authored the dissenting
opinion.
The Ramirez case will, no doubt, have a reach far beyond FCRA
claims. Baker Sterchi will continue to monitor for subsequent
litigation interpreting the Ramirez decision. [GN]
TROPICALE FOODS: Romero Sues Over Misleading Paletas Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO ROMERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. TROPICALE FOODS, LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-01165-JGB-SHK
(C.D. Cal., July 13, 2021) is a consumer protection and false
advertising class action lawsuit brought against the Defendant
regarding its misleading business practices with respect to the
labeling, marketing and sale of its Helados Mexico and La
Michoacana paletas (the "Products").
The Defendant has marketed and sold these Products with labeling,
10 packaging, and advertising that leads consumers to believe that
the Products are made in Mexico, when in fact, they are not.
Specifically, the Helados Mexico Products have "Mexico" in the
brand name, with the phrase "Helados Mexico" translating to
"Mexican ice cream." Furthermore, the product's packaging features
Spanish words such as "Paleta De Crema," "Paleta de Fruta," and
"Con Crema," which, together with the name "Helados Mexico," create
the misleading impression that the products are authentic Mexican
ice creams made in Mexico.
With respect to La Michoacana products, the logo on the products
features a girl wearing a traditional Mexican garment, and holding
a paleta. Moreover, the name of the product is in Spanish and
refers to the state of Michoacán, which is located in Western
Mexico. In fact, the literal translation of "La Michoacana" is "the
woman from the state of Michoacán." Additionally, the La
Michoacana products use traditional, authentic Mexican flavors
including "Limon con Chamoy" and "Mamey."
Furthermore, the packaging features other Spanish word(s), such as
"Variedad" above the word "Variety." Together, these
representations create the misleading impression that the products
are authentic Mexican ice creams made in Mexico, says the suit.
Had Plaintiff and other consumers known that the Products were not
made in Mexico, they would not have purchased the Products or would
have paid significantly less for them. Therefore, Plaintiff and
other consumers have suffered an injury-in-fact as a result of the
Defendant's deceptive practices.
Thus, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, brings this case seeking damages, restitution,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and all other remedies this
Court deems appropriate.
In March 2021, Mr. Romero purchased a variety pack of Helados
Mexico paletas, which included strawberry paletas. Mr. Romero
purchased the product from a Big Lots in Fresno, California. In
purchasing the Helados Mexico product, Mr. Romero saw and relied on
the brand name "HELADOS MEXICO" and Spanish words on the front
label of the product, including the Spanish word "FRESA," and
reasonably believed that the product was made in Mexico.
Tropicale Foods is responsible for the manufacturing, packaging,
marketing, distribution, and sale of the Helados Mexico and La
Michoacana Products in California. Defendant manufactures,
packages, and labels the Products in its Ontario, California
manufacturing facility.
Paletas are frozen treats similar to popsicles that have long been
associated with Mexico, their place of origin. They were first sold
in Michoacan in the 1940s, and later throughout all of Mexico,
becoming one of the country's most popular ice cream treats.
Paletas are sold at ice cream shops all across Mexico, including 8
countless stores called La Michoacana, the name of the company that
first created the product. Indeed, there are more than 15,000 La
Michoacana outlets in Mexico.
Today, while these ice cream shops (or paleterías) go by different
names, the paleta has largely remained the same -- a water or milk
based treat, with traditional Mexican flavors like tamarindo,
limon, coco, and fresa.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
Joshua Nassir, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (424) 256-2884
Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com
rglezakos@faruqilaw.com
jnassir@faruqilaw.com
TS TRANSPORTING: Faces Martinez Suit in California State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SMITH ET AL. The case
is captioned as ALEXIS MARTINEZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ET AL., vs. SMITH ET AL., Case No.
BCV-21-101628 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., July 14, 2021),
The case arises from employment-related issues and is assigned to
the Hon. Judge David R. Lampe.
A case management conference will be held on Jan. 18, 2022.
The Defendants include Travis Smith, Stacy Smith, Chris Rhodes, TS
Transporting, Inc., a California corporation.[BN]
Plaintiffs Alexis Martinez, Andrew Ho, Bill Cook, Delia Joseph,
Derrick Massey, Eric Maldonado, Jay Neilson, Keith Washington,
Manuel Gonzalez, Ralph Rodriguez, Steven Roy Daves, Terrill Lewis,
and Tyler Nichols, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
Sidney S. Sohn, Esq.
VENERABLE LAW
3700 Wilshire Blvd, Ste. 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 383-2332
Facsimile: (213) 383-3452
E-mail: ssohn@venerablelaw.com
UNION PACIFIC: Partial Bid to Dismiss Carrillo Suit OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH CARRILLO v. UNION
PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., Case No. 3:21-cv-00026-FM (W.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge entered an order granting partial motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(6) filed April 12, 2021.
This action arises out of a dispute between Plaintiff and his
former employer, the Defendant. The Defendant hired Plaintiff on
January 28, 2013 as a Diesel Electrician.
The Union Pacific Railroad, legally Union Pacific Railroad Company
and simply Union Pacific, is a freight-hauling railroad that
operates 8,300 locomotives over 32,200 miles routes in 23 U.S.
states west of Chicago and New Orleans.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2WxY1tX at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED AIRLINES: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Jimenez Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOR JIMENEZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES
1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 01269-WBS-JDP (E.D. Cal., July 21,
2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Website to be fully and equally
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually impaired people.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, https://www.united.com/en/us/, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Because the Defendant's Website is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually impaired consumers, resulting in violation of
the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so
that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition blindness in that they have a visual
acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some
blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others
have no vision.
The Defendant offers the https://www.united.com/en/us/ website to
the public. The website offers features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services which Defendant offers
in connection with its physical locations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com
UNITED CONCORDIA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Lyngaas Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED CONCORDIA
COMPANIES, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-11604-SJM-APP (E.D. Mich., July 9, 2021) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
UNITED CONCORDIA COMPANIES, INC. provides dental insurance
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip A. Bock
BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC
134 N. La Salle Street, Ste. 1000
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 658-5500
Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
E-mail: service@classlawyers.com
-and-
Richard E. Shenkan
SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, PLLC
6550 Lakeshore Street
West Bloomfield, MI 48323
Telephone: (800) 601-0808
Facsimile: (888) 769-1774
E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com
UNITED KINGDOM: Sued Over Irish Sea Trading Arrangements
--------------------------------------------------------
The Canary reports that a class action has been launched against
the government claiming post-Brexit Irish Sea trading arrangements
infringe the economic rights of Northern Ireland citizens. The
Northern Ireland Protocol's terms have adversely affected some
companies. If successful, the commercial litigation could pave the
way for these companies to claim significant financial damages from
the government.
Brexit means legal action
The legal move is different to separate legal challenges that have
been mounted against the Protocol on constitutional grounds.
The action names the Cabinet Office and attorney general as
defendants. And it seeks a declaration from the High Court in
London that provisions relating to the Protocol in the EU
Withdrawal Act conflict with the economic rights provided for in
the UK Human Rights Act. The 1998 Human Rights Act enshrines the
European Convention on Human Rights in domestic legislation.
The claim form was lodged with the High Court. It names Ballymena
haulage company Blair International and DUP North Antrim MP Ian
Paisley as the initial claimants.
Solicitor Clive Thorne is acting for the claimants. He said the
next legal stage move would be to formally add a "long queue" of
interested companies to the action. A court hearing would then
follow. [GN]
VIAGOGO ENTERTAINMENT: Shiflett Bid for Class Certification Junked
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN SHIFLETT, v.
VIAGOGO ENTERTAINMENT INC., Case No. e 8:20-cv-01880-JSM-AAS (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge James S. Moody entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
The Court said, "The Plaintiff attributes zero value to a voucher
or a ticket for a postponed event, forgetting that
the current climate is experiencing surging demand for live events.
Rule 23's requirements are rigorous and the presumption is against
class certification. Plaintiff has not met the high burden to
establish the superiority of proceeding as a class action."
The Plaintiff Lauren Shiflett filed the instant action as a class
action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased tickets
through Defendant Viagogo Entertainment Inc. and who were deprived
of a timely refund, or any refund, after events were canceled in
response to the Coronavirus Disease 19 pandemic.
According to the First Amended Complaint: "Defendant has quietly
sought to force the buyers to endure the financial losses of the
event cancellation instead of issuing timely refunds pursuant to
the Viagogo Website's terms and conditions and the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing therein."
The FAC alleges the following claims: breach of contract; breach of
implied contract; violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act; conversion; and unjust enrichment. In relevant part,
Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendant to: "(i) enforce the
Terms and communications regarding refunds issued by Viagogo; (ii)
cease issuing "credits" or "vouchers" in lieu of timely cash
refunds to any Class member who has not requested such credits or
vouchers; and (iii) pay damages and restitution to Plaintiff and
Class members."
A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3f5YBFD at no extra charge.[CC]
VIRGINIA: Solitary Confinement Class Action v. DOC Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press reports that after Virginia prison officials
recently announced the state has ended what it calls "restrictive
housing," some inmate advocates disputed the claim.
The Department of Corrections issued a news release saying it had
"completed the removal of restrictive housing" in Virginia's
prisons by offering at least four hours of out-of-cell time for
those inmates.
But the ACLU of Virginia and Interfaith Action for Human Rights
told the Richmond Times-Dispatch the claim was not true. Both
groups said they have gotten complaints about conditions that don't
meet the standards the state described.
The ACLU wrote that the department "is able to make these
unsubstantiated claims because there is no system of independent
oversight over Virginia prisons, and therefore the public has no
way to verify its alleged reforms."
The organization has a pending class-action lawsuit against the
corrections department over the use of what it calls long-term
solitary confinement in Virginia's two supermax prisons.
Meanwhile, Gay Gardner, with Interfaith Action for Human Rights,
wrote in an email to the newspaper that particularly since the
onset of the coronavirus pandemic, her organization has heard from
even general population prisoners who have not been getting four
hours outside their cells each day. [GN]
WENIG HOLDINGS: Floyd et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS FLOYD and JEFFREY KATZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WENIG HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a
INSURANCESERVICES4U.COM; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant,
Case No. 3:21-cv-05548-JCS (N.D. Cal., July 20, 2021) brings this
complaint as a class action complaint against the Defendants for
their alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant contacted them on their
telephone facsimile numbers ending in -8670 and -3052 beginning in
or around July 2019 in an effort to sell or solicit its services.
The Plaintiffs asserts that they were not customers of the
Defendant, have never provided any personal information to the
Defendant for any purpose whatsoever, and never provided the
Defendant their "prior express consent" to receive calls using a
telephone facsimile machine.
Because the Plaintiffs have incurred charges for incoming messages
from the Defendant in their telephone facsimile numbers, the
Plaintiffs seek statutory damages and treble damages for themselves
and other similarly situated individuals. The Plaintiffs also seek
injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant's unlawful conduct in
the future, and other relief that the Court deems just and proper.
Wenig Holdings LLC offers insurance services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
WEST HILLS: Porter Class Suit Seeks Penalties Under Labor Code PAGA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JHONNA PORTER, individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved
employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act
v. WEST HILLS HOSPITAL, a California corporation; HCA HEALTHCARE,
INC., a Delaware corporation; HCA FAR WEST, an unknown business
entity; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV27027
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 22, 2021) is a Private
Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action brought against the Defendants
to recover penalties, and all other available relief on behalf of
the Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees who suffered one or
more of the Labor Code violations set forth in the California Labor
Code PAGA.
The Defendants allegedly failed to provide plaintiff and the other
aggrieved employees with safe working conditions and allowed
dangerous and unsuitable conditions to exist and be maintained in
their workplace contrary to laws and regulations applicable to the
defendants' business.
The Plaintiff is a registered nurse (RN) and has worked for HCA as
an RN licensed by the State of California since 2009.She officially
started to work for the Defendant West Hills Hospital January 21,
2014.
West Hills Hospital is a medical facility located in West Hills,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan I. Schimmel, Esq.
Michael W. Parks, Esq.
Arya Rhodes, Esq.
Inga Orbeli, Esq.
SCHIMMEL & PARKS, APLC
15303 Ventura Blvd., Suite 650
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 464-5061
Facsimile: (818) 464-5091
WESTFIELD INSURANCE: Graber Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Beth Graber, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
21-0602327 was removed from the Philadelphia County Court of Common
Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on July 26, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-03313 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.
Westfield Insurance, the primary subsidiary of Westfield Group --
https://www.westfieldinsurance.com/ -- is a multi-line provider of
business property and liability insurance, personal lines
insurance, agribusiness insurance, and surety bonds.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
John J. Haggerty, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
2700 Kelly Road, Ste. 300
Warrington, PA 18976-3624
Phone: (216) 345-7500
Fax: (216) 345-7507
Email: jhaggerty@foxrothschild.com
WWF OPERATING: Venegas Employment Suit Goes to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SALVADOR VENEGAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WWF OPERATING COMPANY, LLC; DANONE
NORTH AMERICA PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION; DANONE US, LLC; DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV20991, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on July 22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-05947 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unfair competition, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide required meal
periods, failure to provide required rest periods, failure to
provide accurate itemized statements, failure to reimburse
employees for required expenses, and failure to provide wages when
due.
WWF Operating Company, LLC is a consumer products manufacturer
based in Colorado.
Danone North America Public Benefit Corporation is a
consumer-packaged food and beverage company based in Broomfield,
Colorado.
Danone US, LLC is a food and beverage company based in New York,
New York. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert S. Blumberg, Esq.
Melanie Rollins, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 443-4300
Facsimile: (213) 443-4299
E-mail: rblumberg@littler.com
mrollins@littler.com
[*] Judge Approves Glucosamine Sulfate Class Action in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Proctor, writing for CBC News, reports that it's not every
lawsuit that tickles the judicial funny bone.
But a Vancouver judge saw parallels between one woman's proposed
class-action claim against a handful of pharmaceutical companies
and a legendary British comedy sketch involving an irate customer
who complains that he was tricked into buying a dead parrot.
"Sometimes a consumer will make a purchase but not receive what
they ordered," B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ward Branch wrote before
citing nearly all of the so-called Dead Parrot Sketch by Monty
Python's Flying Circus at the start of a lengthy ruling certifying
the class-action claim.
The woman leading the legal charge -- Uttra Kumari Krishnan --
claimed she spent years buying glucosamine sulfate products that
allegedly contained no glucosamine sulfate.
In giving Krishnan the go-ahead to sue, Branch compared her to "Mr.
Praline" -- the customer in the decades-old skit who confronts a
shopkeeper with a "Norwegian Blue" parrot that turns out to have
been nailed to its perch -- an "ex-parrot" in the words of Mr.
Praline, "expired and gone to meet his maker!"
"Much like the poor Mr. Praline, [Krishnan] complains that she was
sold a health product that did not contain what it said on the
bottle," Branch wrote.
"[She] admits that she does not know for certain what is in the
bottles, but argues that what is important is that it was not
glucosamine sulfate."
From dead parrots to dead shellfish
The judge approved the class-action lawsuit against WN
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Natural Factors Nutritional Products Ltd.
in relation to products purchased after May 6, 2004 that claimed to
contain glucosamine sulfate.
Glucosamine is part of the human cartilage, but it is also found in
the covering of shellfish. Glucosamine sulfate is produced by
combining glucosamine and mineral salt.
Global sales of the compound are worth billions.
If Health Canada approves a licence for a glucosamine sulfate
product, a manufacturer is allowed to say it "helps to relieve
joint pain associated with osteoarthritis and to protect against
cartilage deterioration."
According to Branch's ruling, the lawsuit was sparked by a 2012
academic article that threw doubt on the contents of many
commercial products claiming to contain glucosamine sulfate.
Krishnan claims that a University of British Columbia professor
hired to test a bottle of "Webber Naturals Glucosamine Sulfate 500
mg Capsules" found they did not contain "glucosamine sulphate or
so-called glucosamine sulfate potassium chloride."
The distinction is crucial because experts cited by the claimant
say only glucosamine sulfate itself is effective in managing
osteoarthritis and that other forms of glucosamine are harder to
digest.
The companies dispute the claims. They also say their products met
Health Canada's testing requirements and that the scientific tests
done by Krishnan's expert go beyond what is required by the
government.
Branch reached for the dead parrot sketch again when considering
whether Health Canada's approval for glucosamine sulfate mattered
more when it came to suing than if the product actually contained
glucosamine sulfate.
"To invoke the opening comedic extract, Health Canada's testing
protocols cannot change a dead parrot into a live one," the judge
wrote.
"Health Canada cannot establish a protocol that requires that a
parrot only still have its feathers in order to be sold as a live
parrot, and thereby prevent anyone from suing after being sold a
parrot who 'joined the bleedin' choir invisible.'"
In approving the class action for certification, Branch did not
decide on the merits of the claim -- only whether it met the bar to
proceed. The allegations have not been proven in court.
'Eye-glazing, bum-numbing'
A search of the Canadian Legal Information Institute database shows
a judicial fondness for Monty Python -- a British comedy troupe
that created the Flying Circus TV show, which was broadcast on the
BBC between 1969 and 1974.
The dead parrot sketch is a particular favourite.
In 1998, a tax court judge compared the behaviour of employees at
Human Resources and Development Canada to the parrot seller for
their treatment of taxpayer claims: "They simply refused to accept
the parrot was not napping or meditating but was, in reality,
extremely dead," the judge wrote.
The Alberta Court of Appeal also cited the sketch as a means of
showing that a "moribund" pipe company that had been struck off the
corporate registry could not file a civil claim: "To borrow from
the satire of Monty Python, it is a non-entity and denial does not
change that fact," the judges wrote.
And in a literary tour-de-force, an Ontario Superior Court justice
compared a witness to Monty Python's so-called Minister of Silly
Walks, claiming the man's "credibility was reduced to existential
confetti" when he finished testifying and "he even appeared to be
physically shorter than when the trial began."
The same judge described the closing arguments as "eye-glazing,
bum-numbing" and "disc-herniating."
Not to be outdone, B.C.'s Civil Resolution Tribunal ruled last year
in a dispute involving a man who claimed he was sold a defective
parrot. In that case, the tribunal member found that there was an
"implied warranty" that the ex-parrot -- Tiberius -- would be
healthy for at least six months after purchase. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Cites 3 Employers for Asbestos Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
A KY3 staff, writing for KY3.com, reports that three employers at a
Monett residential nursing facility exposed workers and residents
to asbestos hazards and failed to ensure safe removal of the known
carcinogen during a flooring replacement project, a federal
workplace safety inspection alleges.
In January 2021, the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety
and Health Administration initiated an inspection at the Bentonview
Park Health & Rehabilitation in Monett based on a referral from the
Missouri Department of Natural Resources. On Jan. 22, the state
agency evacuated the facility's residents – 31 days after
flooring work began on Dec. 21, 2020.
OSHA alleges Eastern Coast Management Inc., SRZ Mgmt Holdings LLC
and SRZ OP Bentonview LLC failed to test for the presence of
asbestos, did not erect protective barriers to contain residue and
failed to use respiratory and personal protective equipment to
prevent exposure. Bulk samples of tile backing and mastic collected
at three locations in the facility indicated that between 45
percent and 51 percent of the samples contained chrysotile
asbestos.
OSHA inspectors allege workers for the three employers removed
about 10,000 square feet of floor tiles containing asbestos, and
that none of the employers completed an asbestos assessment to
determine its presence.
"Asbestos is a known human carcinogen released into the air when
asbestos-containing materials are removed. Exposure to its fibers
can cause irreversible lung damage, which is often undetected for
years," said OSHA Area Director Karena Lorek in Kansas City,
Missouri. "Employers must test building materials before removal
and ensure all measures are taken to prevent exposure."
"On multi-employer projects such as this, each employer must ensure
workers are safe from potential hazards. When they fail to do so,
the U.S. Department of Labor will hold them accountable under the
law, Lorek added.
After its inspection, OSHA cited the three companies for not
implementing a respiratory protection program, exposing workers to
asbestos hazards and failing to inform employees of the potential
presence of asbestos. Additional violations and penalties proposed
against each company include:
– Eastern Coast Management Inc., the project's lead contractor,
faces proposed penalties of $105,127 for 11 serious violations.
SRZ Op Holdings LLC, the facility's owner, hired the Woodmere, New
York, company to remove and replace the flooring.
– SRZ Mgmt Holdings LLC of Jefferson City faces proposed
penalties of $95,570 for 10 serious violations. Investigators
determined the company's regional director of operations removed
flooring and used removal equipment and scrapers to keep the
project moving in the lead contractor's absence. The company
assigns managers to the Bentonville facility.
– SRZ OP Bentonview LLC, which operates as Bentonview Park Health
and Rehabilitation, faces $38,228 in proposed penalties for four
serious violations. As the facility's manager, the company had
responsibility for protecting its employees and other workers in
the rehabilitation facility from potential respiratory hazards.
Bentonview Park Health and Rehabilitation provides both short-term
rehabilitation and long-term care.
All three companies have 15 business days from receipt of its
citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference
with OSHA's area director, or contest the findings before the
independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Faces 810 Pending Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., as of June 30, 2021, was aware of
approximately 810 open and active asbestos-related claims pending
against them and certain of its subsidiaries, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "These claims consist of non-PC Relationship
Claims against PPG and claims against a PPG subsidiary the Company
acquired on April 1, 2013. The Company is defending these open and
active claims vigorously.
"PPG has established reserves totaling approximately $190 million
for asbestos-related claims that would not be channeled to the
Trust which, based on presently available information, we believe
will be sufficient to encompass all of PPG's current and estimable
potential future asbestos liabilities. These reserves, which are
included within Other liabilities on the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheets, represent PPG's best estimate of its
liability for these claims.
"These reserves include a $162 million reserve established in 2009
in connection with an amendment to the PC plan of reorganization
for non-PC Relationship Claims other than claims arising from
premises-related exposures. PPG does not have sufficient current
claim information or settlement history on which to base a better
estimate of this liability in light of the fact that the Bankruptcy
Court's injunction staying most asbestos claims against the Company
was in effect from April 2000 through May 2016.
"PPG monitors the activity associated with its asbestos claims and
evaluates, on a periodic basis, its estimated liability for such
claims, its insurance assets then available, and all underlying
assumptions to determine whether any adjustment to the reserves for
these claims is required.
"The amount reserved for asbestos-related claims by its nature is
subject to many uncertainties that may change over time, including
(i) the ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) the amounts required
to resolve both currently known and future unknown claims; (iii)
the amount of insurance, if any, available to cover such claims;
(iv) the unpredictable aspects of the litigation process, including
a changing trial docket and the jurisdictions in which trials are
scheduled; (v) the outcome of any trials, including potential
judgments or jury verdicts; (vi) the lack of specific information
in many cases concerning exposure for which PPG is allegedly
responsible, and the claimants' alleged diseases resulting from
such exposure; and (vii) potential changes in applicable federal
and/or state tort liability law. All of these factors may have a
material effect upon future asbestos-related liability estimates.
As a potential offset to any future asbestos financial exposure,
under the PC plan of reorganization PPG retained, for its own
account, the right to pursue insurance coverage from certain of its
historical insurers that did not participate in the PC plan of
reorganization. While the ultimate outcome of PPG’s asbestos
litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, PPG believes that
any financial exposure resulting from its asbestos-related claims
will not have a material adverse effect on PPG’s consolidated
financial position, liquidity or results of operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3rFRkBx
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Has $59MM Insurance Receivable at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation, as of June 30, 2021, had a recorded receivable
from its insurance carriers of $59.0 million, which corresponds to
the amount of its potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Rexnord Corp. states, "There is no assurance the Company's current
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed the Company's
coverage limits. Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount
of available coverage or create gaps in coverage include: changes
in law governing the policies, potential disputes and settlements
with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and insolvencies
of one or more of the Company's carriers. The receivable for
probable asbestos-related recoveries is recorded in Other assets
within the condensed consolidated balance sheets.
"As of June 30, 2021, the Company estimates the potential liability
for the asbestos-related claims as well as the claims expected to
be filed in the next ten years to be approximately $59.0 million,
of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to pay approximately
$42.0 million in the next ten years on such claims, with the
balance of the estimated liability being paid in subsequent years.
The $59.0 million was developed based on actuarial studies and
represents the projected indemnity payout for current and future
claims. There are inherent uncertainties involved in estimating the
number of future asbestos claims, future settlement costs, and the
effectiveness of defense strategies and settlement initiatives. As
a result, actual liability could differ from the estimate described
herein and could be substantial. The liability for the
asbestos-related claims is recorded in Other liabilities within the
condensed consolidated balance sheets.
"Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of June 30, 2021, is in excess of
the 10 year estimated exposure, and accordingly, believes that all
current claims are covered by insurance."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3zEH4vU
*********
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 ***