/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210804.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, August 4, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 149
Headlines
22ND CENTURY TECHNOLOGIES: Gayed Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
360 DIGITECH: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of September 13 Deadline
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Wedel Claims
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Action
ALAN KAMEL: Class Action Certification Sought in Bereza Suit
ALDI INC: Blind Buyers Can't Access Website, Thompson Suit Alleges
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Sends Unauthorized Text Messages, Miller Says
AMAZON.COM INC: Hogan Sues Over Tying Arrangement With Sellers
ANALOG DEVICES: Bouvy Seeks to Certify Class of Plan Participants
ANNALY CAPITAL: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ARDELYX INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 28 Deadline
ARDELYX INC: Portnoy Law Reminds of September 28 Deadline
ARDELYX INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 28 Deadline
ARDELYX INC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
AUSTRALIA: NT Gov. Settles Youth Justice Class Action for $35MM
BACKYARD LAWN: Harnish FCRA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
BAM! PIZZA: Wright Seeks Proper Expense Reimbursements
BANC OF AMERICA: Faces Walder Suit Over Unauthorized Monthly Fees
BELLUS HEALTH: Roche Freedman Named Lead Counsel in Cachia Suit
BHP: English Court Revives GBP5-Bil. Samarco Class Action
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Franklin Sues Over Older Employees' Decreased Pay
BMW NA: Kavon & Burbank Suits Consolidated for Discovery & Mgmt.
BOSTON, MA: Proposes Settlement of Disability Class Action Lawsuit
BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Court Tosses Discrimination Class Action
BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: District of Maryland Tosses Opiotennione Suit
BRINK'S INCORPORATED: Underpays Messengers/Drivers, Earl Suit Says
BRONX FORD: Seeks Review of Lopez Labor Class Suit Ruling
CALIBURN INTERNATIONAL: Goris Files Suit in C.D. California
CANADA: Class Action Proposed Over Near Crash of Helicopter
CANADA: Faces Class Suit Over Veterans Affairs' Underpaid Benefits
CAPITAL LINK: Henry FDCPA Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
CARLOTZ INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of September 7 Deadline
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Sansone Class Cert. Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice
CHERNE CONTRACTING: Settles Wage Class Action for $2.5 Million
CLAIRES STORES: Mason Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
COBB CO: Dingler Files Petition in N.D. Georgia
COINBASE GLOBAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of September 20 Deadline
COINBASE GLOBAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of September 20 Deadline
COLONIAL PIPELINE: Carlton Fields Attorney Discusses Class Action
CONCHO RESOURCES: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
CORMEDIX INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline
CORMEDIX INC: Gross Law Reminds of September 20 Deadline
CORMEDIX INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of September 20 Deadline
CORMEDIX INC: Scott+Scott Reminds of September 20 Deadline
CREDIT COLLECTION: Walker Files TCPA Suit in C.D. Illinois
CREDITBOX.COM LLC: Hinsley Suit Remanded to New Mexico State Court
CSI FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Roberts Suit Says
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Wickens Herzer Files Securities Class Action
CYCLE-TEX INC: Grange Mutual Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
D'YOUVILLE COLLEGE: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DIGNITY HEALTH: Class Conditionally Certified in 2nd Darling Suit
DIGNITY HEALTH: FLSA Class Conditionally Certified in Darling Suit
DTE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over June Mass Flooding
EMPOWER FEDERAL: Bailey Sues Over Illegal Charges on Debit Accounts
EXCELSIOR COLLEGE: Jolly's Bid to Reopen Castellaw Suit Denied
FEDCAP REHABILITATION: Court Stays Class Cert. Briefing in King
FIRST FINANCIAL: Goodman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
FIRST MERCHANTS: Stelter Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana
FORD MOTOR: Simmons Suit Seeks to Certify Four Classes
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Berger Montague Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
GAZELLE CAFE LLC: Xiloj Hits Misclassification, Seeks Overtime Pay
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Android Users' Hidden Fees
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class-Action in London Over App Store Charges
GORDON DESSERTS: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Delcham Sues Over Unpaid Adjusters' Overtime
GOVERNMENT EMPLYOYEES: Szafran Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
HARDSCOOP INC: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HILLY ACRE: St. John's Lawyer Launches Class Action Lawsuit
HM FOODS LLC: Rios Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
HOOVESTOL INC: Proposed Class Cert. Deadline Tossed in Hardwick
HOST INTERNATIONAL: Schroeder Suit Seeks to Certify Class
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court OKs Parties' Class Cert. Briefing Schedule
IFM INVESTORS: Chief Blames 'Aggressive' Worker Class Action
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Kaleida Health Joins Monopoly Class Action
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: NY Health System Joins Class-Action Suit
JAMES GEORGE: Nash Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliatory Discharge
JOHN HANCOCK: Romano ERISA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Imerys Seeks Judgments Over Breach of Contracts
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Logan Product Liability Suit Goes to E.D. Cal.
JOT LABS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
KELLOGG SALES: Settles Mislabeled Cereals Class-Action for $13-M
KENDALL CREDIT: Hernandez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
KING COUNTY: Counsel Files Notice of Appearance in Jackson Suit
KONINKELIJKE PHILIPS: Osman Sues Over Health Risks of CPAP Devices
KONINKLIJKE PHILLIPS: Baughman Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
KONINKLIJKE PHILLIPS: Farmer Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia
KROGER COMPANY: August 20 Extension for Class Cert. Reply Sought
LIN'S GARDEN: Hong Bid for Conditional Collective Status Tossed
LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces Class Action Over RV Parking Restrictions
LOS ANGELES, CA: Hunt Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
MARLETTE FUNDING: Henry UTPCPL Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Pension Trust Appeals Case Dismissal
MARY KAY COSMETICS: Garrett Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
MDL 2879: 5 Plaintiffs in Marriott Data Breach Suit Must Show Docs
MID-FLORIDA HOUSING: Friend Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
MOCHI ICE CREAM: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MUCHOS TACOS: Faces Torres Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
MULTIPLAN INC: Joint Status Report in Unified Life Suit Due Sept. 3
MYLAN NV: Kansas Court Tosses EpiPen Class Action
MYLIFE.COM: Finlay Seeks to Vacate Prior Class Cert. Sched. Order
NANO FOUNDATION: Seeks Sanction After Plaintiff Dropped Class Suit
NATIONAL CREDIT: Court Denies Bid to Amend Portnoy Class Suit
NESTLE PURINA: Salinas Sues Over Forklift Operators' Unpaid Wages
NOBLE ENERGY: Tenth Circuit Flips Denial of Phelps' Bid to Remand
OATLY GROUP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 24 Deadline
OATLY GROUP: Faces Jochims Suit Over 8.8% Drop of ADS Price
OATLY GROUP: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Sept. 24 Deadline
OATLY GROUP: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Action
OATLY GROUP: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 24 Deadline
OATLY GROUP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of September 24 Deadline
OCUGEN INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 17 Deadline
OHIO NATIONAL: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Veritas Suit Denied
OHIO SECURITY: E.D. Wisconsin Dismisses Biltrite Insurance Suit
ORPHAZYME A/S: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 13 Deadline
ORPHAZYME A/S: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of September 7 Deadline
PAN DINER: Faces Maldonado Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
PARAMOUNT PROPERTY: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
PARTS AUTHORITY: Diligent Delivery Wins Dismissal Bid in Jaime Suit
PENSACOLA STATE COLLEGE: Ehrhardt Suit Removed to N.D. Florida
PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES: Walsh Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Martin Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of September 21 Deadline
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of September 21 Deadline
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Vincent Wong Reminds of September 21 Deadline
PIERMONT WEALTH: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PREFERRED COLLECTION: Nieves Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
PRIME STAFFING: Nyanwleh Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Nurses
PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN: Tyk Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana
QUICKEN LOANS: Limited 3rd Party Discovery in Carter Suit Allowed
REALTIME FANTASY: Fischler Sues Over Blind's Equal Website Access
RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT: Nasta Files FDCPA Suit in W.D.N.C.
REKOR SYSTEMS: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Garcia Suit Moved to E.D. Wisconsin
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Carrasco Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
ROCKFORD MERCANTILE: Barfield Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
SAMSUNG TELECOM: $2.8M Class Settlement in Norcia Suit Has Final OK
SEFBO PIPELINE: Underpays Manual Laborers, Macias Suit Alleges
SHAMROCK SALOON: George Must File Fully Executed Class Settlement
SOULBOUND STUDIOS: Class Action Lawsuit Transferred to Washington
ST. LOUIS, MO: Furlow Appeals Civil Rights Case Dismissal
STABLE ROAD: Thornton Law Reminds of September 13 Deadline
STATUE.COM INC: Website Not Blind-accessible, Davis Says
SUGARBREAK LLC: Blind Can't Access Website, Fischler Suit Alleges
SUNSET FOOD: Seeks 7th Cir. Review in Railey BIPA Suit
TEKSYSTEMS INC: Speranza Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Linesmen
TENNESSEE: Gov. Sued for Ending Federal Unemployment Benefits
TENNESSEE: Governor Lee Faces Suit Over Pandemic Unemployment Aid
TESLA INC: Owners Could Get $625 Each in Class Action Settlement
TESLA INC: Settles Class Lawsuit Over Throttling Battery Capacity
TRACTOR SUPPLY: Settles Hydraulic Fluid Products Class Action Suit
TRINIDAD & TOBAGO: Policyholders Urged to Join Class Action
UNITED AMERICAN: Jones' $350K Class Deal Partly Wins Final Approval
UNITED STATES: Deanda Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Three Classes
UNITED STATES: Settles Class Action Seeking Relief From OPT Delays
VAXSERVE INC: Pennsylvania Court Affirms Order in Weitzner Suit
VIRGIN ORBIT: Mercado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VISTA SHADOW: Former Apartment Residents File Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settlement Reached in Touareg Class Action Lawsuit
WAKE COUNTY, NC: Gorrell Wins Bid for Conditional Class Status
WASHINGTON REGIONAL: Nguyen Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas
WISE FOODS: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Mislabeled Chips
YELLOWSTONE CAPITAL: J.B. Plumbing RICO Suit Goes to S.D.N.Y.
ZIA MARIA: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Servers, Hyseni Claims
ZYNGA INC: Wins Motions to Compel, Dismiss in Breach Data Lawsuit
[*] RV Dealer Settles Wage Class Action Lawsuit for $4 Million
[*] Transunion Ruling to Derail Commuters' Class Action Lawsuit
[*] U.S. Securities Class Action Filings Down in First Half 2020
*********
22ND CENTURY TECHNOLOGIES: Gayed Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 22nd Century
Technologies Inc. The case is styled as Youssif Gayed as an
aggrieved employee on behalf of other similarly situated aggrieved
employees under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004
v. 22nd Century Technologies Inc, Case No.
56-2021-00556640-CU-OE-VTA (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., July 29,
2021).
The case type is stated as "Other employment."
22nd Century Technologies, Inc. -- https://www.tscti.com/ --
provides IT services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David G. Spivak, Esq.
THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
16530 Ventura Blvd, Ste. 203
Encino, CA 91436-4535
Phone: 818-582-3086
Fax: 818-582-2561
Email: david@spivaklaw.com
360 DIGITECH: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of September 13 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired 360 DigiTech, Inc. ("360 DigiTech"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: QFIN) securities between April 30, 2020
and July 7, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). 360 DigiTech
investors have until September 13, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/3CfAttW to participate.
On July 8, 2021, Seeking Alpha reported chatter on social media
that the Company's core product offering, the 360 IOU app, has been
removed from app stores.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $7.12, or 21%, 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 complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company
had been collecting personal information in violation of relevant
PRC laws and regulations; (2) accordingly, 360 DigiTech was exposed
to an increased risk of regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement
action; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased 360 DigiTech 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 360 DigiTech securities, have information
or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The
Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100,
Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Wedel Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD WEDEL, 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-02315-RMG (D.S.C., July 27, 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.
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 contends.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of AdaptHealth Corp. ("AdaptHealth" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: AHCO) from November 11, 2019 through July 16, 2021 (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleges violations
of the Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased AdaptHealth securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit AdaptHealth
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) AdaptHealth had misrepresented its organic growth
trajectory by retroactively inflating past organic growth numbers
without disclosing the changes, in violation of SEC regulations;
(ii) accordingly, the Company had materially overstated its
financial prospects; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
On July 19, 2021, before market hours, Jehoshaphat Research
published a report alleging that AdaptHealth is a "roll-up"
company, or a company that is built primarily through the
acquisition of smaller companies with common services or products,
that obscures its organic growth by "[r]etroactively changing past
organic growth numbers to be higher, with no disclosure about the
change." The report also suggested that AdaptHealth's manipulation
of its organic growth trajectory was "a blatant violation of
non-GAAP disclosure rules, for which companies get into huge
trouble."
On this news, AdaptHealth's stock price fell $1.51 per share, or
5.93%, to close at $23.96 per share on July 19, 2021.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 27, 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 AdaptHealth securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/adapthealthcorp-ahco-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-389/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.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
ALAN KAMEL: Class Action Certification Sought in Bereza Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN BEREZA, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN
KAMEL, and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 2:20-cv-04699-MF (D.N.J.), the
Parties ask the Court for an order certifying this case to proceed
as a class action for settlement purposes and granting final
approval of their class settlement agreement.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3frnDPv at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
375 Passaic Avenue
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Telephone: (973) 227-5900
Facsimile: (973) 244-001
The Defendant is represented by:
Lawrence S. Cutalo, Esq.
O'TOOLE SCRIVO, LLC
14 Village Park Road
Cedar Grove, NJ 07009
Telephone: (973) 239-5700
Facsimile: (973) 239-3400
ALDI INC: Blind Buyers Can't Access Website, Thompson Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
TYRONE THOMPSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALDI INC., d/b/a Aldi Foods Inc.; and DOES 1
to 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-06039 (C.D. Cal.,
July 27, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh
Civil Rights Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The website, https://www.aldi.us/,
contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class
members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and
services offered to the general public through the website. These
access barriers include, but not limited to: (a) lack of
alternative text (alt-text), or a text equivalent; (b) empty links
that contain no text; (c) redundant links where adjacent links go
to the same uniform resource location (URL) address; and (d) linked
Images missing alt-text.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Aldi Inc., doing business as Aldi Foods Inc., is a company that
owns and operates grocery stores, with its headquarters in Batavia,
Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
Binyamin 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
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Sends Unauthorized Text Messages, Miller Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RITA MILLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 6:21-cv-01202-WWB-GJK (M.D. Fla., July 26, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an unlawful
practice of sending text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone to promote its insurance products without obtaining prior
express written consent, thereby causing invasion of privacy,
intrusion upon seclusion, wasted time and loss of personal and
professional productivity.
Allstate Insurance Company is an insurance company, with its
principal place of business located at 2775 Sanders Road,
Northbrook, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Phillips, Esq.
Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
Amy L. Judkins, Esq.
NORMAND PLLC
3165 McCrory Place, Ste. 175
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 603-6031
Facsimile: (888) 974-2175
E-mail: Jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com
Ed@ednormand.com
Amy.judkins@normandpllc.com
ean@normandpllc.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Hogan Sues Over Tying Arrangement With Sellers
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA HOGAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00996 (W.D. Wash., July 26, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has violated antitrust
laws by forcing sellers to purchase its fulfillment services for
them to gain access to Amazon's Buy Box feature. The Buy Box is the
section on the right side of an Amazon product detail page where
customers can add a product to their carts. Amazon's alleged
anticompetitive conduct harms sellers because it permits Amazon to
charge increased fees for compulsory fulfillment services and also
leads to higher prices for Amazon.com shoppers through several
mechanisms. Moreover, the Defendant's use of its monopoly level of
power harms market competition through its tying arrangement with
sellers, says the suit.
Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company
which focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming,
and artificial intelligence, with a principal place of business at
410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
amcentee@terrellmarshall.com
- and –
Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
Justin N. Boley, Esq.
Zoran Tasic, Esq.
WEXLER WALLACE LLP
55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 346 2222
Facsimile: (312) 346 0022
E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
jnb@wexlerwallace.com
zt@wexlerwallace.com
ANALOG DEVICES: Bouvy Seeks to Certify Class of Plan Participants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL BOUVY v. ANALOG
DEVICES, INC., a Massachusetts company, as successor to LINEAR
TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION; LINEAR TECHNOLOGY LLC, a Delaware company;
LINEAR TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE; and DOE DEFENDANTS
1-20, Case No. 3:19-cv-00881-DMS-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of:
"All participants and beneficiaries of the Linear Technology
401(k) Plan from May 6, 2013 through the date of judgment."
The Plaintiff Michael Bouvy is or was during the time in suit a
participant in the Linear Technology 401(k) Plan (the "Plan"), a
defined contribution plan governed by the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").
The Defendants are fiduciaries of the Plan, who owe to the Plan and
all participants a broad range of fiduciary duties. The Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants breached those duties and by causing the
Plan to pay unreasonable and excessive fees to the Plan's service
providers and by providing imprudent investment options.
The Plaintiff brings this action under 29 U.S.C. section 1132(a)(2)
on behalf of the Plan against the Defendants and seeks to recover
all losses to the Plan resulting from the Defendants' ERISA
violations as provided for in 29 U.S.C. section 1109(a).
Analog is an American multinational semiconductor company
specializing in data conversion, signal processing and power
management technology, headquartered in Wilmington, Massachusetts.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 23,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lxeEQy
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
Lily E. Hough, Esq.
EDELSON PC
150 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
lhough@edelson.com
ANNALY CAPITAL: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Annaly Capital
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Arturo Stevez, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Annaly Capital
Management, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-06470 (S.D.N.Y., July 29,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Annaly Capital Management -- https://www.annaly.com/ -- is a
leading diversified capital manger that invests in and finances
residential and commercial assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
ARDELYX INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 28 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Ardelyx, Inc. ("Ardelyx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
ARDX) in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Ardelyx securities between August 6, 2020 and
July 19, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors
have until September 28, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed
as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Ardelyx is a specialized biopharmaceutical company focused on
developing medicine to improve treatment for people with
cardiorenal disease, including patients with chronic kidney disease
("CKD") on dialysis suffering from elevated serum phosphorus, or
hyperphosphatemia.
In June 2020, Ardelyx submitted a New Drug Application (NDA) to the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for its lead product
candidate, tenapanor, a supposedly first-in-class medicine for the
control of serum phosphorus in adult patients with CKD on dialysis.
Ardelyx's NDA was purportedly supported by successful Phase 3
studies, which, according to the complaint, showed "improvements"
over current treatments and supported tenapanor's "clinical safety
and efficacy," reinforcing its "potential" to be a "transformative"
treatment.
After the market closed on July 19, 2021, however, Ardelyx revealed
that it had received a letter from the FDA stating that it had
detected issues with both the size and clinical relevance of the
drug's treatment effect.
On this news, the Company's share price declined, falling $9.71 per
share, or nearly 74%, to close at $2.01 per share on July 20,
2021.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Ardelyx 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
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. [GN]
ARDELYX INC: Portnoy Law Reminds of September 28 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Ardelyx, Inc. (NASDAQ: ARDX) investors
that acquired shares between August 6, 2020 and July 19, 2021.
Investors have until September 28, 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.
Ardelyx issued a press release on July 19, 2021 "announc[ing] that
it received a letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(the 'FDA' on July 13, 2021 stating that, as part of its ongoing
review of the company's New Drug Application ("NDA") for the
control of serum phosphorus in chronic kidney disease patients on
dialysis, the FDA has identified deficiencies that preclude
discussion of labeling and post-marketing requirements/commitments
at this time." Ardelyx stated further that "[w]hile the FDA has not
provided specific details regarding the deficiencies, the FDA noted
that a key issue is the size of the treatment effect and its
clinical relevance."
On July 20, 2021, Ardelyx's stock price fell $5.69 per share, or
73.9%, on this news, to close at $2.01 per share.
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
28, 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.[GN]
ARDELYX INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 28 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of
Ardelyx Inc. (NASDAQ: ARDX) securities between August 6, 2020 and
July 19, 2021, inclusive ("Class Period") have until September 28,
2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Ardelyx class
action lawsuit. The Ardelyx class action lawsuit charges Ardelyx
and certain of its top executives with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The Ardelyx class action lawsuit was
commenced on July 30, 2021 in the Northern District of California
and is captioned Strezsak v. Ardelyx Inc., No. 21-cv-05868.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Ardelyx 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 Ardelyx class action lawsuit must be filed with the
court no later than September 28, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: In June 2020, Ardelyx submitted a New Drug
Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") for Ardelyx's lead product candidate, tenapanor, a
supposedly first-in-class medicine for the control of serum
phosphorus in adult patients with chronic kidney disease on
dialysis. The FDA accepted Ardelyx's NDA in September 2020 and set
a Prescription Drug User Fee Act date of April 29, 2021.
The Ardelyx class action lawsuit alleges that Ardelyx repeatedly
lauded this development, highlighting the FDA's acceptance and
review of the NDA, supported by so-called "successful" Phase 3
studies, in each subsequently filed quarterly report and in the
Company's 2020 Annual Report. However, the Ardelyx class action
lawsuit further alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding tenapanor and the likelihood that it would be approved by
the FDA. Specifically, the Ardelyx class action lawsuit alleges
that defendants possessed, were in control over, and, as a result,
knew (or had reason to know) that the data submitted to support the
NDA was insufficient in that it showed a lack of clinical relevance
of the drug's treatment effect, making it foreseeably likely (if
not certain) that the FDA would not approve the drug.
On July 19, 2021, Ardelyx announced that it had received a letter
from the FDA, dated July 13, 2021, that said the FDA had found
deficiencies that precluded discussion around the would-be labeling
and post-marketing requirements for tenapanor. The FDA revealed
that it detected issues with both the size and clinical relevance
of the drug's treatment effect. On this news, Ardelyx's stock price
fell nearly 74%, damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Ardelyx
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Ardelyx 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 Ardelyx class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Ardelyx class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the Ardelyx 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.[GN]
ARDELYX INC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of Sept. 28 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 Ardelyx Inc. (NASDAQ: ARDX)
("Ardelyx" or the "Company") and certain Ardelyx officers and
directors, alleging violations of Sec10 and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec78j(b) and 78t(a), and
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sec240.10b-5. If you purchased Ardelyx common
stock between August 6, 2020 and July 19, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), and have suffered significant losses, realized or
unrealized, you are encouraged to contact Scott+Scott attorney
Jonathan Zimmerman at (888) 398-9312 for more information.
Ardelyx is a specialized biopharmaceutical company focused on
developing medicine to improve treatment for people with
cardiorenal disease, including patients with chronic kidney disease
("CKD") on dialysis suffering from elevated serum phosphorus, or
hyperphosphatemia.
In June 2020, Ardelyx submitted a New Drug Application (NDA) to the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for its lead product
candidate, tenapanor, a supposedly first-in-class medicine for the
control of serum phosphorus in adult patients with CKD on dialysis.
Ardelyx's NDA was purportedly supported by successful Phase 3
studies, which, according to the complaint, showed "improvements"
over current treatments and supported tenapanor's "clinical safety
and efficacy," reinforcing its "potential" to be a "transformative"
treatment.
After the market closed on July 19, 2021, however, Ardelyx revealed
that it had received a letter from the FDA stating that it had
detected issues with both the size and clinical relevance of the
drug's treatment effect. On this news, the Company's share price
declined, falling $9.71 per share, or nearly 74%, to close at $2.01
per share on July 20, 2021.
According to the complaint, Ardelyx and the other named defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding tenapanor
and the likelihood that it would be approved by the FDA during the
Class Period, which led investors to suffer significant losses.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline
The Lead Plaintiff deadline in this action is September 28, 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. The case is
pending in the Northern District of California under docket number
4:21-cv-05868.
What You Can Do
If you purchased Ardelyx common stock during the Class Period, 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.
[GN]
AUSTRALIA: NT Gov. Settles Youth Justice Class Action for $35MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Heaney, writing for ABC News, reports that the Northern
Territory government has reached a $35 million settlement with
young people who claimed to have been mistreated while in youth
detention in the NT.
Territory Families Minister Kate Worden said she believed this was
the largest ever class action settlement the NT government had
faced.
Ms Worden said the money to pay the settlement had been drawn
broadly from across government.
"Departments don't put aside a figure like this, a sum like this,
at any point," she said.
"It will figure in our annual reports next year."
The NT government had tried to stop the figure from being publicly
released, over concerns the media would report the settlement sum
"sensationally and out of context".
But Federal Court Justice Debra Mortimer ordered on Monday that it
be made public.
The settlement comes after two lead applicants launched a class
action in 2016, claiming they were assaulted, abused and falsely
imprisoned while in youth detention facilities in Darwin and Alice
Springs.
A statement from law firm Maurice Blackburn said the settlement was
historic and that around 1,200 people could be eligible for a share
in the compensation.
The class action applies to young people who spent time in NT youth
detention centres between 2006 and 2017, and was settled with a
denial of liability from the NT government in May 2021.
Maurice Blackburn lawyer Ben Slade said the outcome was an
important acknowledgement of the pain caused to children in the
Northern Territory's youth detention facilities.
"While in detention, these young people were subjected to appalling
treatment that included excessive force, handcuffing,
strip-searching and isolation in cells.
"These young people may have broken the law, but they did not
deserve to be broken by the law."
Aaron Hyde, one of the two applicants who launched the class
action, said he hoped the settlement would lead to change.
Claims of mistreatment in the NT's youth justice system were
investigated in a Four Corners episode that sparked a royal
commission the same year.
Ms Worden said the government accepted the commission's findings
and had implemented 158 out of 218 recommendations.
"There's an additional 57 that are underway and three additional
that have not yet commenced," she said.
Ms Worden said the NT government agreed to the settlement as they
had wanted to end the longstanding legal matter.
"We acknowledge the stain this historic event has had on the
Northern Territory.
"It will be settled for $35 million, inclusive of costs, and this
historic case will be put to bed." [GN]
BACKYARD LAWN: Harnish FCRA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as James Harnish, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Backyard Lawn Master,
LLC, Case No. 21-CA-004717 was removed from the Hillsborough County
Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on July 30, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-01829 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Backyard Lawn Master -- https://lawn-master.com/ -- offers outdoor
structures that are crafted from nature's finest timber.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Cullan Edmiston Jones, Esq.
FORD & HARRISON, LLP
101 E. Kennedy Blvd. Suite 900
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 261-7800
Fax: (813) 261-7899
Email: cjones@fordharrison.com
BAM! PIZZA: Wright Seeks Proper Expense Reimbursements
------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Wright, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Bam! Pizza Management, Inc., Brian Bailey, Doe
Corporation 1-10, John Doe 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01655,
(N.D. Tex., July 19, 2021), seeks unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Defendants own over 100 Domino's stores located in Texas, New
Mexico and Colorado. Wright is a delivery driver for a Domino's
store in Dallas, Texas. He claims to be inadequately reimbursed for
delivery-related expenses, thereby rendering his pay below the
legally mandated minimum wages for all hours worked. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jay D. Ellwanger, Esq.
David W. Henderson, Esq.
Ellwanger Law LLLP
8310-1 N. Capital of Texas Hwy., Ste. 190
Austin, TX 78731
Telephone: (214) 948-3334
Facsimile: (214) 853-9410
Email: jellwanger@equalrights.law
dhenderson@equalrights.law
- and -
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
Louise M. Roselle, Esq.
Nathan J. Spencer, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513) 715-8711
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
Email: akimble@billerkimble.com
pkrzeski@billerkimble.com
lroselle@billerkimble.com
nspencer@billerkimble.com
BANC OF AMERICA: Faces Walder Suit Over Unauthorized Monthly Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHEILA WALDER D/B/A SHEILA'S MOBILE SPA & SHEILAS WALDER MOBILE SP,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BANC OF AMERICA MERCHANT SERVICES, LLC, and FISERV,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-01247 (C.D. Cal., July 27, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California's Unfair Competition Law, breach of contract, and breach
of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged illegal practice of
collecting unauthorized monthly fees from their small business
customers, including the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was charged two
different fees that were not disclosed under her contract: a
monthly fee of $19.95 for Clover Security Plus, which was purported
to ensure that her business transactions were compliant with
applicable security standards and also a monthly $20 fee, entitled
"Non Receipt of Payment Card Industry (PCI) validation fee" for not
being compliant with applicable security standards.
As a result, the Plaintiff and other Class members allegedly
incurred hundreds of dollars in onerous illegal monthly fees.
Sheila Walder, doing business as Sheila's Mobile Spa & Sheilas
Walder Mobile Spa, is a massage therapy business.
Banc of America Merchant Services, LLC is a provider of merchant
services, with its headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Fiserv, Inc. is a provider of financial technology and financial
services, with its headquarters in Brookfield Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
David C. Wright, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
dcw@mccunewright.com
- and –
Elaine S. Kusel, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
E-mail: esk@mccunewright.com
BELLUS HEALTH: Roche Freedman Named Lead Counsel in Cachia Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARL D. CACHIA, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. BELLUS HEALTH INC., ROBERTO
BELLINI and FRANCOIS DESJARDIS, Defendants, Civil Action No.
1:21-cv-02278 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge George B. Daniels of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York appointed Carl
D. Cachia as the Lead Plaintiff and his counsel, Roche Freedman,
LLP, as the Lead Counsel.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 21D(a)(3)(A)(i) of the
Securities Exchange Act, on March 16, 2021, notice of the Lead
Plaintiff deadline was published in a widely circulated national
business-oriented wire service, advising Class members of the
pendency of the class action, the claims asserted therein, the
purported Class Period, and their right to move this Court to be
appointed Lead Plaintiff.
Pursuant to Section 21D of the Exchange Act, any purported Class
member desiring to be appointed Lead Plaintiff was required to have
filed a motion for such appointment no later than Monday, May 17,
2021.
Lead plaintiff movant Carl D. Cachia has timely filed a motion for
appointment as Lead Plaintiff. The Movant otherwise satisfies the
requirements of Section 21D of the Exchange Act and Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In accordance with Section
21D(a)(3)(B)(v) of the Exchange Act, the Movant seeks approval of
his selection of counsel, Roche Freedman, to serve as the Lead
Counsel for the Class.
Having considered the Movant's Motion for: (1) Appointment as Lead
PLaintiff; and (2) Approval of his Selection of lead Counsel, and
all supporting documents, and good cause appearing; therefore,
Judge Daniels granted the motion.
Pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act. 15 U.S.C.
Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B), the Movant is appointed as the Lead
Plaintiff for the Class in the Action. Pursuant to Section
21D(a)(3)(B)(v) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v), he approves the Movant's selected and retained
counsel, Roche Freedman, to serve as the Lead Counsel in the
Action.
The Lead Counsel will have the following responsibilities and
duties, to be carried out either personally or through counsel whom
Lead Counsel will designate: to coordinate the briefing and
argument of any and all motions; to coordinate the conduct of any
and all discovery proceedings; to coordinate the examination of any
and all witnesses in depositions; to coordinate the selection of
counsel to act as spokesperson at all pretrial conferences; to
coordinate all settlement negotiations with counsel for Defendants;
to coordinate and direct the pretrial discovery proceedings and the
preparation for trial and the trial of this matter, and to delegate
work responsibilities to selected counsel as may be required; to
coordinate the preparation and filings of all pleadings; and to
supervise all other matters concerning the litigation.
The Lead Counsel will have authority to speak for the Plaintiff in
matters regarding pre-trial and trial procedure and settlement
negotiations and will make all work assignments in such a manner as
to facilitate the orderly and efficient prosecution of this
litigation and to avoid duplicative or unproductive effort. No
settlement negotiations will be conducted without the approval of
Lead Counsel.
The Lead Counsel will be responsible for coordination of all
activities and appearances on behalf of the Plaintiff and for the
dissemination of Court orders and notices. No motion, request for
discovery or other pretrial proceedings will he initiated or filed
by the Plaintiff except through the Lead Counsel.
The Lead Counsel will be the contact between the Class and the
Defendants' counsel and will serve as spokespersons for the Class.
The Lead Counsel will act as the liaison between the Court and the
Class.
The Defendants' counsel may rely upon all agreements made with the
Lead Counsel or other duly authorized representatives of the
Plaintiff, and such agreements will be binding on the Plaintiff.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/seauj68w from Leagle.com.
BHP: English Court Revives GBP5-Bil. Samarco Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Australian Financial Review reports that a GBP5 billion ($9.4
billion) class action against BHP over the 2015 Samarco dam
disaster has risen from the grave, after an English court
overturned a seemingly final earlier judgment and allowed the
Brazilian claimants to launch an appeal.
After a High Court judge looked to have buried the case in March,
ruling that there were no grounds to appeal a November decision in
BHP's favour, the claimants on Tuesday won the Court of Appeal's
approval for a fresh hearing.
"Whilst we fully understand the considerations that led the judge
to his conclusion that the claim should be struck out, we
nevertheless believe that the appeal has a real prospect of
success," the trio of Appeals Court judges said in their ruling.
The case was brought by a group of Brazilian businesses, churches,
municipalities, utility companies and individuals, under the
auspices of class action law firm PGMBM.
They are seeking redress for the collapse of the Fundao iron-ore
tailings dam, which killed 19 people, left hundreds homeless and
wrought environmental and infrastructure damage that extended
hundreds of kilometres across two states.
A class action in Brazil procured a settlement of 20 billion
Brazilian reals ($5.2 billion) - forcing BHP and its partner, Vale,
to set up the Renova Foundation to remediate damage and compensate
affected individuals.
But the claimants in the English case argue that they need to
litigate outside Brazil because they are getting only slow and
inadequate redress via the Brazilian courts -- where a second, 155
billion-real lawsuit is under way -- and from the Renova
Foundation.
In November, an English judge ruled that the case should not be
heard, because it would be too complex and costly, and it would be
difficult to co-ordinate with the parallel action in Brazil. In
March, an appeals judge upheld that decision in full -- and it
looked like case closed.
But PGMBM successfully invoked an "exceptional appeals" procedure,
which can force a further hearing if there is risk of "real
injustice".
"After the case was struck out in March there was a view that this
was the end of the road for the victims. So it is incredibly
rewarding for us to be able to tell them that we still believe they
will see satisfactory redress through the English courts," said
PGMBM managing partner Tom Goodhead.
"This is a monumental judgment and our clients feel like this is
the first time that any judges have recognised the importance of
this case."
But the wheels of English justice will still turn only slowly. An
appeal is unlikely to get started until next year, and the losing
side will then probably lodge a further appeal to the Supreme
Court.
And even this process will only establish whether the full case can
be heard in England, rather than deciding the substance of the
claim.
BHP said it would continue pushing back against the lawsuit, saying
in a statement that "the proceedings do not belong in the UK".
"Issues brought by the claimants are already covered by the work of
the Renova Foundation, by existing decisions of the Brazilian
courts, or are the subject of ongoing legal proceedings in Brazil,"
the statement said.
BHP argues that Renova has disbursed more than 13 billion reals,
and a new "simplified indemnity system" introduced last August has
got 2 billion reals out to 20,000 recipients.
The claimants counter that Renova has struggled to keep its 42
projects on track, and its real purpose is to limit BHP's and
Vale's liability, rather than deliver effective remedies. [GN]
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Franklin Sues Over Older Employees' Decreased Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHELIA FRANKLIN, MARIA CLAROS, and SHERI RAINGE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BJ'S
WHOLESALE CLUB, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-01855-PWG (D.
Md., July 26, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act by imposing
decreased hourly pay rates and demotions on employees aged 40 years
or older.
Plaintiffs Franklin and Claros worked for the Defendant as produce
supervisors and Plaintiff Rainge worked as a receiving clerk in
Maryland.
BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. is an American membership-only warehouse
club chain with its principal place of business in Westborough,
Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James M. Ray, II, Esq.
RAY LEGAL GROUP, LLC
8720 Georgia Avenue, Suite 904
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 755-5656
Facsimile: (301) 755-5627
E-mail: jim.ray@raylegalgroup.com
BMW NA: Kavon & Burbank Suits Consolidated for Discovery & Mgmt.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Edward S. Kiel of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted in part BMW's motion to consolidate
the cases, ADAM KAVON, et al., Plaintiffs v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA,
LLC, Defendant. WILLIAM MARTIN BURBANK, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BMW OF NORTH
AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case Nos. 20-cv-15475-KM-ESK,
21-cv-01711-KM-ESK (D.N.J.).
Mr. Kavon filed a complaint against BMW on Oct. 23, 2020, in the
U.S. District Court for Central District of California. He
voluntarily dismissed that complaint a week later, and refiled the
same complaint in this Court on Nov. 2, 2020.
The Kavon Complaint sought to certify a nationwide class of
individuals who purchased BMW vehicles equipped with an "Electrical
System: Propulsion System: Traction Battery," including the 2020-21
BMW "530e, 530e xDrive, 530e iPerformance and X3 xDrive30e and MINI
Cooper Countryman All4 SE, 2020 BMW i8, and 2021 330e, 330e xDrive,
745Le xDrive and X5 xDrive45e." It primarily sought a nationwide
class, requesting certification of a California state subclass "in
the alternative" and "only in the event that the Court declines to
certify the Nationwide Class."
The Kavon Complaint alleges that the Class Vehicles had "a serious
manufacturing defect that causes the battery system to be
unreasonably dangerous, due to debris in the manufacturing
process." Kavon brought claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act (MMWA), 15 U.S.C. Section 2301 et seq., a number of claims
under California's Song-Beverly Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1790,
and Unfair Business Practices Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section
17200 et seq., along with a claim for breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing.
On Dec. 3, 2020, Burbank filed a California-only class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
which alleged the same claims based on the same conduct as alleged
in Kavon's suit. The Burbank Complaint differed from the Kavon
Complaint insofar as Burbank sought to represent a California-only
class on a standalone basis, rather than as part of a nationwide
class bringing MMWA claims. The near-identity of these actions
does not appear to be a coincidence; the Burbank Complaint
"borrows" from the pleadings in Kavon verbatim.
On Jan. 25, 2021, Kavon filed an amended complaint which added
additional state subclasses for Virginia and Nevada, still pleaded
as "in the alternative" and "only in the event that the Court
declines to certify the Nationwide Class." On March 22, 2021,
Kavon amended his complaint again, removing the Virginia subclass
but adding Texas and Minnesota subclasses. This time, Kavon
changed the way that the state subclasses were pleaded by seeking
certification of those classes "in addition to the Nationwide
class." This modification eliminated the most significant
difference between his suit and Burbank's.
Three days later, BMW filed the Motion seeking consolidation.
Mr. Burbank seeks to avoid consolidation for a number of reasons.
He claims that Kavon is not committed to maintaining a truly
separate California subclass, noting that Kavon pleaded the
California subclass as in the alternative, and only in the event
that his preferred nationwide class was denied), until just three
days before BMW filed this motion to consolidate. Burbank claims
Kavon added the California subclass purely to aid BMW's motion to
consolidate and worries that California class members will be
ill-served by a nationwide class because California law offers
remedies superior to the MMWA.
Mr. Burbank also argues that Kavon's nationwide class will
inevitably fail because BMW has a defense against Kavon's MMWA
claim under Floyd v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 966 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir.
2020). He argues that after the nationwide class fails, all that
remains will be state law claims based on the law of California,
Minnesota, Nevada, and Texas, and suggests that the California
class might be transferred back to California. He argues the Court
therefore will be better situated to determine whether
consolidation is appropriate after it addresses BMW's motion to
dismiss.
Judge Kiel agrees with Burbank. He opines, the case, at this
juncture, should be consolidated for discovery and case management
purposes only. The merits of Burbank's claim that Floyd threatens
Kavon's nationwide class are not before the Judge but Burbank's
point is taken that there are unresolved questions over whether
such a class could be maintained and, if it cannot, whether the
California, Minnesota, Nevada and Texas class claims would properly
be brought together in New Jersey.
Any consideration of consolidating the parties' complaints for all
purposes should await resolution of BMW's motion to dismiss. In
the meantime, the Judge holds that it appears inadvisable to
scramble Kavon and Burbank, only to have to unscramble them later.
Any lurking concerns about attorneys attempting to "control" this
litigation are best addressed later, once BMW's motion to dismiss
is resolved.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Kiel granted BMW's motion to
consolidate to the extent that the parties will coordinate
discovery and case management. An appropriate order accompanies
this Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/99yekpzp from Leagle.com.
BOSTON, MA: Proposes Settlement of Disability Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of this notice is to inform you of a proposed
settlement in a pending class action lawsuit brought on behalf of
individuals with Mobility Disabilities against the City of Boston.
The proposed class action settlement is set out in a document
called a "proposed Consent Decree." The proposed Consent Decree,
which must be approved by the United States District Court before
it goes into effect, was reached in the case entitled Muehe et al.
v. City of Boston, Case No. 1:21-cv-11080-RGS, filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The following is a summary of certain provisions of the proposed
Consent Decree. To access a copy of the full Consent Decree, see
the "Further Information" section below.
The City must maintain all curb ramps in good working order, except
for temporary interruptions due to construction, maintenance, or
repairs. When curb ramps are temporarily unavailable, the City will
provide an alternative route that is accessible to people with
Mobility Disabilities. In addition, the City must use best efforts
to ensure timely removal of snow and other debris from curb ramps
and sidewalks through continued enforcement of city ordinances and
promptly respond to complaints concerning puddles of water that
form at the bottom of curb ramps.
Under the proposed Consent Decree, Class Counsel can apply to the
Court for an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses from the
City to pay them for their work on the case and to reimburse them
for the costs they put into the case. Class Counsel's application
for attorneys' fees will be based on the "lodestar" method, which
means that Class Counsel will calculate their fees by multiplying
the time the attorneys and paralegals at their offices reasonably
spent working on the case by their reasonable hourly rates.
If you do not want the proposed Consent Decree to be approved, you
can ask the Court to deny approval by filing an objection. You
cannot ask the Court to order a different settlement or change the
settlement; the Court can only approve or reject the settlement. If
the Court denies approval, the City will not be required to install
and upgrade curb ramps as set out in the proposed Consent Decree.
Instead, the lawsuit will continue. If that is what you want to
happen, you must object. Any objection to the proposed Consent
Decree must be in writing.
Thomas P. Murphy
DISABILITY LAW CENTER, INC.
32 Industrial Drive East
Northampton, MA 01060413-584-6524dlc-ma.org
This notice summarizes the proposed Consent Decree. For the precise
and full terms and conditions of the settlement, please see the
proposed Consent Decree available at
gbdhlegal.com/cases/muehe-et-al-v-city-of-boston or
CREEClaw.org/BostonCurbRamps, by contacting Class Counsel at the
contact information below, by accessing the Court docket on this
case through the Court's Public Access to Electronic Records
(PACER) system at ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, or by visiting the office
of the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston,
Massachusetts 02110, between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Court holidays.
Timothy P. Fox
Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center
1245 E. Colfax Avenue, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80218303-757-7901creeclaw.org [GN]
BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Court Tosses Discrimination Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Willis, Esq., of Ballard Spahr LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that a Maryland federal district court has
dismissed a putative class action lawsuit filed against nine
companies that manage apartment buildings in the Washington, D.C.
area by a 55-year old prospective tenant who alleged the defendants
engaged in unlawful "'digital housing discrimination'" by routinely
and intentionally excluding older people from receiving Facebook
advertisements for their apartment complexes in the D.C. area. In
addition to injunctive relief, the complaint sought monetary
damages on behalf of the plaintiff and putative class members.
In Opiotennione v. Bozzuto Management Company, the plaintiff
alleged that because of the defendants' practices, she was denied
the opportunity to receive defendants' Facebook advertisements for
rental housing targeted to younger potential tenants. She alleged
that had she seen such advertisements, she would have clicked on
them, reviewed the relevant information on the defendants' linked
website, and potentially applied for and rented an apartment at one
of the defendants' complexes. The Complaint alleged that Facebook
allows advertisers to target their advertisements using
characteristics such as age, gender, location, and preferences of
Facebook users. (Note that Facebook has a "special ad audiences"
feature which is designed to be used for housing, credit and
employment ads that, according to Facebook, disallows the type of
targeting alleged in this lawsuit). According to the plaintiff, the
defendants used this targeting function to exclude older
individuals from receiving their advertisements and directed their
advertisements to younger prospective tenants.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendants violated the D.C. Human
Rights Act (HRA) by (1) making advertisements that state a
preference based on a protected class, (2) refusing or failing to
initiate or conduct a real estate transaction or falsely
representing that a property is not available for a discriminatory
reason based on an individual's age, (3) aiding and abetting
Facebook's violation of the HRA, and (4) steering older individuals
by denying them advertisements. She also claimed the defendants
violated a provision of the Montgomery County Code that prohibits
the publication of a housing advertisement indicating that age
could influence or affect a real estate transaction.
The plaintiff alleged that she suffered the following four
different injuries in fact, none of which the court found
sufficient to confer Article III standing:
Deprivation of information about housing opportunities. The court
commented that while the plaintiff might have preferred to wait for
advertisements on Facebook to appear on her screen rather than
running her own apartment search on one of many websites on which
the defendants advertised or running a Google search for D.C. area
apartments, she was not prevented from obtaining the same
information on the same apartment websites linked to the
defendants' Facebook advertisements. The court concluded that when
the identical information sought by the plaintiff was readily
available through other sources, the plaintiff's preference to use
Facebook did not amount to a deprivation of information that might
be considered a constitutional injury in fact.
Economic harm because the inability to learn of opportunities for
units at defendants' properties through their Facebook
advertisements caused her greater expense, delay, and hardship in
searching for housing. The court found the plaintiff's alleged
economic harm to be highly conjectural, thereby undermining her
claim of a sufficient injury in fact. The court again observed that
the websites to which the defendants' advertisements led their
targeted audience could just as easily been reached in other ways.
In the court's view, "[n]o more expense and no more inconvenience
are required to access a rental company's website directly through
simple searches on apartment search websites or Google than to
scroll through Facebook in the hope of lighting upon just the right
housing advertisement, which may in fact never appear."
Stigmatic harm when learning she had been excluded from the
targeted audience for the defendants' advertisements due to her
age. The court noted that Facebook users would have needed to click
on a link contained in the advertisements to see why they received
the advertisements. The court found there was "no reason to suppose
that any Facebook users who received the advertisement would
necessarily have clicked that link to find out why they received
the advertisement." It concluded that it was "a far cry from a
concrete and particularized injury to suggest that an otherwise
facially neutral advertisement can cause harm by stigmatizing
members of a certain group "when there is no suggestion that the
recipients of the advertisement, nor indeed anyone excluded from
receiving it (other than Plaintiff), were even aware of the
targeting."
Deprivation of the benefits of age-integrated associations by being
steered away from the defendants' properties. The court found this
claim to be "simply without foundation," observing that "when there
exists ten paths to the same destination, an individual is not
'steered away' from that destination just because one of the paths
-- and certainly, here, not the most direct path—is obscured from
her view."
This is a significant decision, to us, for a couple of reasons.
Most obviously, it seems likely to make it more difficult for
private parties to attempt to bring lawsuits related to online ad
targeting on social media networks or through methods like paid
search. But, secondarily, we wonder whether it will serve as a
barrier to regulatory actions as well. Regulatory agencies, of
course, do not have to prove standing in quite the same manner as
private plaintiffs, but the existence of court decisions that hold
that online targeting of advertisements causes no injury to
consumers could still interfere with regulatory enforcement
actions, by enabling parties to argue that is no harm to support a
violation of any law, or to support an award of restitution. [GN]
BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: District of Maryland Tosses Opiotennione Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NEUHTAH OPIOTENNIONE, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY,
et al., Defendants, Civil No. 20-1956 PJM (D. Md.), Judge Peter J.
Messitte of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Ms. Opiotennione has filed the putative class action against nine
companies that manage various apartment buildings in the
Washington, D.C., area. The Plaintiff, a 55-year-old prospective
tenant in the region, alleges that the Defendants engaged in
"digital housing discrimination" by routinely and deliberately
excluding older people, such as her, from receiving advertisements
on Facebook for dozens of apartment complexes in the D.C. area, in
violation of D.C. and Montgomery County civil rights and consumer
protection laws. She seeks a declaration that the alleged digital
discrimination is unlawful, an injunction against the alleged
discriminatory advertising practices, and monetary damages on
behalf of herself and the putative class of "thousands of other
older persons who have been denied housing information and
opportunities."
The Plaintiff is a decades-long resident of the District of
Columbia who submits that, throughout 2018 and 2019, she regularly
searched for two- and three-bedroom rental housing in the D.C. area
(including the District; Montgomery County, Maryland; and northern
Virginia) in the price range of approximately $2,500 per month or
more. She states that in 2019, after she was unable to find
suitable rental housing, she purchased a home in the District of
Columbia. She explains that she has been a regular user of
Facebook since prior to 2018 and, at all appropriate times, has
been interested in receiving information about housing
opportunities on Facebook.
The Plaintiff alleges, however, that, because the Defendants
deliberately excluded persons more than 50 years of age from
receiving their advertisements, she was denied the opportunity to
receive their Facebook housing advertisements targeted to younger
potential tenants, which contributed to the difficulty she
experienced in finding suitable rental housing. She states that,
had she seen such advertisements, she would have clicked on them,
would have reviewed the information on the Defendants' linked
websites, and potentially would have applied for and secured an
apartment at one of their properties.
In creating a targeted Facebook advertisement, advertisers can
determine who sees their advertisements based on such
characteristics as age, gender, location, and preferences. The
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants routinely used this targeting
function to exclude older individuals such as herself from
receiving their Facebook advertisements for rental housing the D.C.
area, which were instead directed to younger prospective tenants.
She further asserts that the Defendants' advertisements included
discriminatory "age-based statements" intended to discourage older
individuals from applying for the advertised housing.
The Plaintiff lists specific properties allegedly advertised to an
age-restricted audience on Facebook by all nine Defendants over a
three-year period from 2018 to 2020. She alleges that, in
violation of D.C. and Montgomery County laws, these advertising
campaigns have been central features of the Defendants'
discriminatory marketing practices.
The Plaintiff claims that four Defendants (Bozzuto, JBG Smith,
Kettler, and Tower) violated the Montgomery County Code and the
D.C. Human Rights Act (DCHRA). The relevant Montgomery County Code
provision states that "a person must not publish or circulate, or
cause to be published or circulated, any housing notice, statement,
listing, or advertisement indicating that age could influence or
affect a covered real estate transaction."
As to the DCHRA, she accuses the same four Defendants of (1) making
advertisements that unlawfully state a preference based on a
protected class, D.C. Code Section 2-1402.21(a)(5); (2) unlawfully
refusing or failing to initiate or conduct a transaction for real
estate or falsely representing that a property is not available
"wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason based on the age
of any individual," id. Section 2-1402.21(a)(1); (3) unlawfully
aiding and abetting Facebook's violation of the DCHRA, id. Section
2-1402.62; and (4) denying older individuals advertising and
thereby unlawfully "steering" them, id. Section 21-1402.22.
Further, the Plaintiff alleges that all nine Defendants have
violated a D.C. Consumer Protections and Procedures Act provision
that prohibits violating D.C. laws, such as the DCHRA, in a
consumer context. D.C. Code Section 28-3904.
The Plaintiff filed the suit, joined by former Plaintiff Housing
Rights Initiative, on July 1, 2020, which the Defendants thereafter
moved to dismiss. On Nov. 23, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint, which superseded the original complaint, and on
Jan. 7, 2021, the Defendants filed the present motion to dismiss
the amended complaint. The Defendants argue lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. On June 17, 2021, the
Court held oral argument on the Defendants' motion and took the
matter under advisement. It now addresses the pending motion to
dismiss.
Discussion
The Plaintiff asserts she has sustained four distinct injuries in
fact. Judge Messitte finds that none of those alleged injuries
suffice to confer constitutional standing.
The Plaintiff first alleges that she was deprived of information
about housing opportunities when Defendants excluded her from the
targeted audiences of their Facebook advertisements. She compares
her allegations to the facts in Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman,
where the Supreme Court held that "tester" plaintiffs who sought
information about the defendant's housing units, even without an
intention to rent, suffered a cognizable injury in fact when the
defendant failed to provide the Black applicant the same
information regarding housing availability as it provided to the
White applicant.
Judge Messitte is not persuaded. As an initial matter, the Judge
opines that the case is quite dissimilar from Havens: There, the
"tester" plaintiffs had made specific inquiries and were given
affirmative misinformation about the availability of the rental
housing. In contrast, the Plaintiff did not seek any information,
much less receive false information, from the Defendants. Indeed,
she fails to state what specific information she was prevented from
receiving, such as the availability of or rental price of units in
a particular building. Moreover, on their face the challenged
Facebook advertisements contain little more than conventional
marketing language; they merely seek to draw Facebook users'
attention in an attempt to entice them to click a link that would
lead them to the advertiser's website on which the relevant
information, open to anyone, is actually provided.
The Plaintiff next alleges economic harm because the denial of
housing opportunities by Bozzuto, JBG Smith, Kettler, and Tower
caused her greater expense, delay, and hardship in her quest for
housing. She asserts that she did not learn of the opportunities
for units at certain of the Defendants' properties in that the
mentioned four Defendants ensured she would not see their Facebook
advertisements.
Judge Messitte finds the Plaintiff's alleged economic harm highly
conjectural, undermining her claim of the requisite injury in fact.
For the reasons he just discussed, he says the Plaintiff's
exclusion from the Defendants' housing advertisements on Facebook
was not tantamount to being "denied a housing opportunity." Her
arguments might have been more compelling if the case involved
allegations of denied opportunities to apply for housing despite
frustrated affirmative efforts on the Plaintiff's part to do so, as
in Havens, but the allegations here are much less solid than that.
No specific information -- much less, for example, a rental
application -- was contained in the Facebook advertisements that
the Plaintiff was not privy to. Again, the fact remains that the
advertisements she challenges merely led the targeted audience to
websites that the Plaintiff could just as easily have reached in
other ways.
The Plaintiff further alleges that she suffered stigmatic harm when
she learned that she had been excluded from the targeted audience
for the Defendants' housing advertisements by reason of her age.
She contends that this exclusion constituted "unequal treatment"
based on a protected trait (i.e., age), leading to "embarrassment
and humiliation." The Plaintiff compares her situation to that of
a landlord placing "a 'whites only' advertisement in a community
newsletter targeted at white families."
But -- to the extent that Facebook advertisements can fairly be
compared to traditional media -- Judge Messitte opines that the
case seems more akin to a landlord placing a facially neutral
advertisement in a community newsletter aimed primarily at White
community members -- while, at the same time, placing facially
neutral advertisements directed at the community as a whole in all
the more widely distributed papers in town. Whatever theoretical
distress that hypothetical scenario might engender, it cannot be
said to cause "embarrassment and humiliation" sufficient to produce
the injury in fact required for standing.
Finally, the Plaintiff asserts she was deprived of the benefits of
age-integrated associations by allegedly being steered away from
Defendants' properties. The claim is simply without foundation,
the Judge holds. To emphasize once again, when there exist ten
paths to the same destination, an individual is not "steered away"
from that destination just because one of those paths -- and
certainly, here, not the most direct path -- is obscured from her
view.
In sum, the Plaintiff has failed to allege any concrete and
particularized injury in fact.
Conclusion
Judge Messitte wishes to make clear that it does not reach the
merits of the Plaintiffs claim, viz., whether the Defendants'
advertising practices were or may have been contrary to D.C. and
Montgomery County civil rights law intended to protect against
housing advertisements that discriminate based on age, among other
protected traits. However, this particular Plaintiff, in his view,
has not demonstrated "the irreducible constitutional minimum of
standing" to sue with respect to the housing advertisements at
issue. He, therefore, grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. A
separate order will be issued.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3k5ckbb9 from Leagle.com.
BRINK'S INCORPORATED: Underpays Messengers/Drivers, Earl Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
BERNARD EARL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRINK'S INCORPORATED d.b.a. BRINK'S SECURITY
and THE BRINK'S COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01860-GLR (D.
Md., July 26, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and
Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law by
failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a messenger/driver based
out of Annapolis Junction, Maryland location from on or about
February 1, 2017 to the present.
Brink's Incorporated, doing business as Brink's Security, is an
American private security and protection company headquartered
outside Richmond, Virginia.
The Brink's Company is an American private security and protection
company headquartered outside Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jay P. Holland, Esq.
Michal Shinnar, Esq.
JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, PA
6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
Greenbelt, MD 20770
Telephone: (301) 220-2200
Facsimile: (301) 220-1214
E-mail: jholland@jgllaw.com
mshinnar@jgllaw.com
BRONX FORD: Seeks Review of Lopez Labor Class Suit Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Defendants BRONX FORD, INC., et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled STEPHANIE LOPEZ,
individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. BRONX FORD, INC., CITY WORLD ACQUISITION GROUP, INC.,
CITY WORLD MOTORS, L.L.C., CITY WORLD ESTATE AUTO HOLDINGS, L.L.C.,
and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by BRONX
FORD, INC., CITY WORLD ACQUISITION GROUP, INC., CITY WORLD MOTORS,
L.L.C., CITY WORLD ESTATE AUTO HOLDINGS, L.L.C., Defendants, Case
No. 155504/2017, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
Count of New York.
The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wage and overtime compensation in violation of New York
Labor Law.
The Defendant appeal the trial court's decision and Order granting
Plaintiff's motion to strike the pleadings and denying Defendants'
cross-motion for: (i) a protective Order; (ii) an Order vacating a
Court Attorney's "Order" to the extent it constitutes one and a
declaratory judgment declaring it has no legal effect; (iii) an
Order dismissing every cause of action against City World
Acquisition Group ("CWA") based upon documentary evidence, for
failure to state a cause of action, and for summary judgment; and
(iv) an Order of sanctions against Plaintiff. Among other reasons,
Defendants-Appellants submit that the trial court erred and
otherwise abused its discretion in striking the pleadings for what
it incorrectly found constituted perjury. Further, there was a
sufficient basis and ample evidence in the record warranting
dismissal of CWA from this action based on Defendants-Appellants'
cross-motion, the appeal says.
The appellate case is captioned as Stephanie Lopez v. BRONX FORD,
INC., CITY WORLD ACQUISITION GROUP, INC., CITY WORLD MOTORS,
L.L.C., CITY WORLD ESTATE AUTO HOLDINGS, L.L.C., and/or any other
entities affiliated with or controlled by BRONX FORD, INC., CITY
WORLD ACQUISITION GROUP, INC., CITY WORLD MOTORS, L.L.C., CITY
WORLD ESTATE AUTO HOLDINGS, L.L.C., Case No. 2021-02726, in the
Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court in and for the
First Judicial Department.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants BRONX FORD, INC., CITY WORLD ACQUISITION
GROUP, INC., CITY WORLD MOTORS, L.L.C., CITY WORLD ESTATE AUTO
HOLDINGS, L.L.C., and/or any other entities affiliated with or
controlled by BRONX FORD, INC., CITY WORLD ACQUISITION GROUP, INC.,
CITY WORLD MOTORS, L.L.C., and CITY WORLD ESTATE AUTO HOLDINGS,
L.L.C. are represented by:
Emanuel Kataev, Esq.
MILMAN LABUDA LAW GROUP PLLC
3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 3W8
Lake Success, NY 11042-1073
Telephone: (516) 328-8899
Facsimile: (516) 3280082
E-mail: emanuel@mllaborlaw.com
CALIBURN INTERNATIONAL: Goris Files Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caliburn
International, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Nelson Goris, an
individual on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Caliburn International, LLC, Comprehensive Health Services, LLC,
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-06178 (C.D. Cal., July
30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Caliburn -- https://www.caliburnintl.com/ -- is a global,
end-to-end government services provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
CANADA: Class Action Proposed Over Near Crash of Helicopter
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Beswick at saltwire.com reports that a proposed class-action
lawsuit has been launched against Canadian Helicopters over a 2019
flight that almost ended in tragedy.
According to a statement of claim filed in Nova Scotia Supreme
Court by MacGillivray Law, a Sikorsky S-92 helicopter was ferrying
passengers to the Thebaud central facility, also known as the Sable
offshore drilling rig, in thick fog July 24, 2019.
As the pilots made a third attempt to land on the platform under
manual control, the helicopter began dropping perilously fast and
spinning out of control, the statement of claim says.
"Neither the pilot monitoring nor the pilot flying noticed that the
helicopter was moving too slow, nor that its descent had increased
to 850 feet per minute," the document says.
"Had the pilot flying and pilot monitoring known the helicopter's
speed and rate of descent, they would have realized the well-known
risk of the helicopter entering a vortex-ring state. In a
vortex-ring state, the air patterns around the helicopter change
such that the rotors cannot provide lift and the helicopter drops
uncontrollably."
According to passengers, who are the suit's plaintiffs, the
helicopter narrowly missed hitting the platform as it plunged,
tilted and spiralled toward the ocean. The engines roared as the
pilots cranked them well beyond their rated capacity in an effort
to regain lift.
"At the point of near impact, the engines were throttled beyond
limit, extremely loud, torqued at well over capacity," reads the
filing.
"The class members could hear the engines screaming as ocean water
sprayed all over the windows. The class members were bracing
themselves and preparing themselves mentally and for crash
procedures. The class members thought the helicopter was crashing
into the ocean surface at high speed and that they were going to
die."
According to the filing, the helicopter made contact with the water
and the main rotor blade sliced through a wave before it began to
rise again, still spiralling.
It plunged toward the ocean a second time and then rose again,
still spiralling, with the engines over-torqued as it passed over
Sable Island.
The helicopter then limped back to Halifax Stanfield International
Airport.
The class-action suit on behalf of all the passengers claims
negligence against Canadian Helicopters for attempting the flight
in such poor conditions, for attempting to land three times despite
inadequate visibility and for decisions made by the pilots that
contributed to the near crash.
The suit claims unspecified damages for psychological harm,
including post-traumatic stress disorder, and physiological harm to
the passengers.
A response has yet to be filed by Canadian Helicopters. [GN]
CANADA: Faces Class Suit Over Veterans Affairs' Underpaid Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Court has certified a class action alleging that
Veterans Affairs Canada miscalculated benefit adjustment rates,
resulting in underpayments to class members.
In 2018, Veterans Affairs Canada issued a statement in response to
a discrepancy in the calculation of disability pension adjustment
rates. Corrective payments began in September 2019 and continue to
be issued. However, the class action alleges that further amounts
are owing to class members, including those flowing from other
alleged miscalculations.
Class members include members and former members of the Canadian
Armed Forces and Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their spouses,
common-law partners, dependants, survivors, orphans, or estates of
all such persons who received, at any time between 2002 and the
present, disability pensions, disability awards and certain other
benefits administered by Veterans Affairs Canada. It is estimated
that there are upwards of 270,000 class members.
The lawyers for the class are: Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP (Toronto);
Michel Drapeau Law Office (Ottawa); Murphy Battista LLP (Kelowna
and Vancouver); Koskie Minsky LLP (Toronto); McInnes Cooper
(Halifax). For more information about this class action, including
a list of the specific benefits at issue, please see
www.vetspensionerror.ca [GN]
CAPITAL LINK: Henry FDCPA Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RONALD HENRY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CAPITAL LINK MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No.
GD-21-007226, was removed from the Allegheny County Court of Common
Pleas, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania on July 27, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00989-JFC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.
Capital Link Management, LLC is a debt collection agency, with a
principal place of business located in Amherst, New York. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brendan H. 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
CARLOTZ INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of September 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of CarLotz, Inc. (NASDAQ: LOTZ) investors
that acquired shares between December 30, 2020 and May 25, 2021.
Investors have until September 7, 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.
It is alleged in this complaint made misleading and false
statements to the market. In the second half of 2020, CarLotz
suffered from a "logjam" in relation to a surge of inventory.
CarLotz' gross profit per unit suffered in relation to these
inventory problems. CarLotz offered aggressive pricing to customers
in order to minimize returns to its sourcing partner. CarLotz'
gross profit per unit forecast was inflated. CarLotz public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period, based on these facts. Investors suffered damages when
the market learned the truth about CarLotz.
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.
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]
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Sansone Class Cert. Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER M. SANSONE, and
BALDEMAR ORDUNO, Jr., Individually and on Behalf of Other Members
of the Public Similarly Situated, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.;
TWC ADMINISTRATION LLC; CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Case No.
3:17-cv-01880-WQH-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Q. Hayes
entered an order:
1. granting the motion for reconsideration filed by the
defendants;
2. denying as moot the motion for certification for
interlocutory appeal filed by the Defendants;
3. directing that any motions for summary judgment must be
filed within 60 days of this order; and
4. denying the motion to certify class filed by plaintiffs
Jennifer M. Sansone and Baldemar Orduno, Jr., without
prejudice and with leave to refile after the adjudication
of any motions for summary judgment.
On December 6, 2017, the Plaintiffs Jennifer M. Sansone and
Baldemar Orduno, Jr., individually and on behalf of other members
of the public similarly situated, filed the first Amended Complaint
against the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs allege that their employment with TWCA was
terminated when Time Warner Cable, Inc. and Legacy Charter
Communications, Inc. merged. The Plaintiffs allege they did not
consent to a carryover of the accrued unused vacation wages and
that they were not paid for the accrued unused vacation wages. The
Plaintiffs allege that CCL calculated vacation wages in a manner
that reduced employee compensation. The Plaintiffs allege that CCL
reduced employee base compensation after promising not to reduce
base compensation.
On July 6, 2018, the Court denied a Motion to Dismiss filed by
Defendants. On February 27, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to
Certify Class supported by a request for judicial notice and
declarations.
On January 20, 2021, the magistrate judge held a case management
conference.
Charter Communications is an American telecommunications and mass
media company with services branded as Charter Spectrum.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VwE3PK at no extra charge.[CC]
CHERNE CONTRACTING: Settles Wage Class Action for $2.5 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
bloomberglaw.com reports that Cherne Contracting Corp.'s agreement
to pay $2.5 million to settle a class action brought on behalf of
California workers was preliminarily approved by a federal court.
Plaintiffs Beatrice Parker and Jeffrey Gurule Sr. worked for Cherne
at Tesoro and Chevron refineries. They allege Cherne failed to pay
employees for time spent badging in, traveling from a refinery gate
to the work site, and donning required safety gear.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
previously dismissed some of the plaintiffs' claims, finding that a
collective bargaining agreement precluded claims relating to unpaid
overtime and missed meal periods. The court also partially denied
class action certification, but granted it with respect to claims
for failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements.
The two sides engaged in mediation, and reached a settlement
agreement under which Cherne will pay $2.5 million. From this total
class counsel will receive attorneys' fees and costs of up to
$790,000, and up to $16,000 will go to settlement administration
costs.
The 1,840 individual class members are expected to receive an
average settlement payment of about $623. They and about 370 other
aggrieved workers will also receive an average of about $56 under
California's Private Attorneys General Act.
Parker and Gurule will receive class representative awards of up to
$7,500, as well as $20,000 each to settle their individual wage and
hour claims.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. granted preliminary approval to the
settlement, saying the deal appears fair, reasonable, and
adequate.
Keller Grover LLP represents the plaintiffs. Perkins Coie LLP
represents Cherne.
The case is Parker v. Cherne Contracting Corp., N.D. Cal., No.
4:18-cv-01912, preliminary settlement approval 7/29/21.
To contact the reporter on this story: Brian Flood in Washington at
bflood@bloomberglaw.com
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Rob Tricchinelli
at rtricchinelli@bloomberglaw.com; Patrick L. Gregory at
pgregory@bloomberglaw.com [GN]
CLAIRES STORES: Mason Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Claires Stores, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Portia Mason, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Claires Stores, Inc.
doing business as: Icing, an Illinois corporation; Does 1 to 10
inclusive; Case No. 2:21-cv-06200-SVW-MRW (C.D. Cal., July 30,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Claire's -- https://www.claires.com/us/ -- is an American retailer
of accessories, jewelry, and toys primarily aimed toward tween and
teen girls.[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
COBB CO: Dingler Files Petition in N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cobb Co, GA Superior
Court, et al. The case is styled as Dingler, as next friend and
Father of B.A.M. Petitioner, on behalf of themselves and all minors
similarly situated, Petitioner v. Cobb Co, GA Superior Court, Judge
Latain Kell, GA Div Family & Child Services (DFCS), Tom C.
Rawlings, Respondents, Case No. 1:21-cv-03071-AT (N.D. Ga., July
29, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus (State).
Cobb Co, GA Superior Court --
https://www.cobbcounty.org/courts/superior-court -- is a County
court in Marietta, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
COINBASE GLOBAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of September 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming September 20, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Coinbase Global, Inc. ("Coinbase"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: COIN) Class A common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement for the resale of up
to 114.8 million shares, whereby Coinbase began trading as a public
company on or around April 14, 2021 (the "Offering").
If you suffered a loss on your Coinbase investments or would like
to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/coinbase-global-inc/. You can also
contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn
more about your rights.
Coinbase is the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the U.S. The
Offering materials stated that Coinbase is "powered by a robust
backend technology system" and that it had "grown quickly and in a
capital-efficient manner since [its] founding."
On May 17, 2021, Coinbase announced a $1.25 billion convertible
bond sale. Forbes.com noted that "[i]nvestors were also likely
surprised by the timing of the issue, considering that Coinbase
just went public in mid-April via a direct listing (which doesn't
involve issuing new shares or raising capital), signaling that it
didn't require cash."
On this news, Coinbase's stock fell $9.24, or 3.7%, to close at
$239.00 per share on May 18, 2021, thereby injuring investors.
Then, on May 19, 2021, Coinbase announced technical problems,
including "delays…due to network congestion" affecting those who
wanted to withdraw their money.
On this news, Coinbase's stock price fell $14.20, or 6%, to close
at $224.80 per share on May 19, 2021, thereby injuring investors
further.
The Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and
omitted to state material adverse facts. Throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1)
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, Defendants' statements
about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times. [GN]
COINBASE GLOBAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of September 20 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against
Coinbase Global Inc. (NASDAQ: COIN) ("Coinbase") on behalf of those
who purchased or acquired Coinbase Class A common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
(collectively, the "Offering Materials") 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 (the
"Offering").
Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Coinbase
Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering may,
no later than September 20, 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/coinbase-global-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=coinbase
According to the complaint, Coinbase "powers the cryptoeconomy,"
offering a "trusted platform" for sending and receiving Bitcoin and
other digital assets built using blockchain technology to
approximately 43 million retail users, 7,000 institutions, and
115,000 ecosystem partners in over 100 countries.
On April 14, 2021, Coinbase filed its prospectus on a Form 424B4,
which forms part of the registration statement. Coinbase registered
for the resale of up to 114,850,769 shares of its Class A common
stock by registered shareholders. According to the registration
statement, the resale of Coinbase's stock was not underwritten by
any investment bank and the registered stockholders would
purportedly elect whether or not to sell their shares. Such sales,
if any, would be brokerage transactions on the NASDAQ, and Coinbase
would purportedly not receive any proceeds from the sale of shares
of Class A common stock by the registered stockholders. Thus,
Coinbase's operations would continue to be financed with cash flow
from operating activities and net proceeds from the sale of
convertible preferred stock. As of December 31, 2020, Coinbase had
cash and cash equivalents of $1.1 billion, exclusive of restricted
cash and customer custodial funds.
The complaint alleges that one month later, the high-flying promise
of Coinbase came to a screaming halt, as Coinbase conceded the need
to raise capital and revealed performance issues that prevented
users' ability to trade cryptocurrencies. On May 17, 2021, Coinbase
announced its plans to raise about $1.25 billion via a convertible
bond sale. Then, on May 19, 2021, Coinbase revealed technical
problems, including "delays . . . due to network congestion"
affecting those who want to get their money out.
Following this news, Coinbase'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. By the time the complaint was
filed, Coinbase stock traded as low as $208.00 per share, a decline
from its April 14, 2021 opening price of $381.00 per share.
The complaint alleges that the Offering Materials 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 Coinbase scaled its services to a
larger user base; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the
defendants' positive statements about Coinbase's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
Coinbase investors may, no later than September 20, 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. [GN]
COLONIAL PIPELINE: Carlton Fields Attorney Discusses Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Swanson, Esq., of Carlton Fields, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that high-profile ransomware attacks have dominated the
headlines this year. Those attacks pose existential threats for
some victim companies, and they also may garner the attention of
regulators. In addition, these attacks are increasingly prompting
the filing of class action lawsuits. This means that the victim
company not only must withstand the attack itself, but also faces
litigation exposure. This article documents this phenomenon and
provides practical suggestions and resources to mitigate these
risks.
The Rise of Ransomware
Ransomware attacks exploded during the pandemic and have continued
unabated. According to the federal government, attackers received
approximately $350 million in ransom payments in 2020, an increase
of more than 300% from 2019. Those attacks have targeted businesses
and organizations in virtually every sector. Further, those attacks
often target small and medium-sized businesses.
Meanwhile, ransomware attacks have evolved beyond locking up a
victim's networks and systems to also, in many cases, stealing the
victim's data. The attacker then threatens to disclose that data
publicly unless the ransom is paid.
Class Actions to Follow
Increasingly, a ransomware attack -- particularly if it involves
the theft of victim data that includes customer or employee
information -- prompts the filing of one or more class actions. In
such an action, the plaintiffs assert that the victim should have
done more to prevent the attack and the theft of data.
The increased risk of class actions in the wake of a ransomware
attack aligns with the findings of the 2021 Carlton Fields Class
Action Survey, which draws on 415 interviews of general counsel and
senior legal officers at major corporations regarding class action
trends. Survey respondents predicted that the next wave of class
actions would stem from cybersecurity issues and data privacy,
including ransomware attacks.
Further, plaintiffs may use these class actions to pursue novel
theories of liability. For example, pipeline operator Colonial,
which experienced a ransomware attack in May, faces two class
actions brought by consumers and gas station owners, respectively.
Those claims don't seek relief based on compromised personal data;
rather, they assert that Colonial's negligence caused higher
gasoline prices.
What to Do
Whether the Colonial plaintiffs will succeed will turn on several
issues, including the reasonableness of Colonial's cybersecurity
measures, policies, and procedures. "Reasonable security" is a
frequently used term in cybersecurity but is often undefined.
Given the ambiguity in that term, plaintiffs may argue that a
defendant company failed to avail itself of publicly available
resources that allegedly could have thwarted the attack. Indeed,
the Colonial plaintiffs cite various government resources and
pronouncements regarding ransomware. And, with the spike in
ransomware, those publicly available resources are growing.
One such resource is the recently unveiled government website
StopRansomware.gov. This website contains an array of resources,
including articles describing ransomware, providing tips for
protecting an organization, recommendations for responding to an
attack, and links for reporting an attack.
The government's release of this website comes on the heels of
ransomware guidance issued by the White House in June, as well as
guidance issued by other regulators, including the New York State
Department of Financial Services.
The government's ransomware website and these other government
resources offer practical suggestions for mitigating the chance of
an attack in the first place and, should an attack occur, helping
the company to respond quickly. Those resources identify several
measures to promote "cyber hygiene" and reduce risk, including:
-- Email filtering and anti-phishing training
-- Vulnerability/patch management
-- Multifactor authentication
-- Strong password management
-- Privileged access management
-- System monitoring and response solutions
-- Developing and testing an incident response plan
In addition to checking the extent to which these measures are in
place, companies should (i) review their insurance program,
including any cyber insurance policies; and (ii) develop a
compliance program to evaluate the sanctions risk posed by paying a
ransom. Item (ii) is particularly important in light of the
government's position that paying a ransom may expose a victim
company to a sanctions enforcement proceeding.
In the end, the risk of ransomware is likely here to stay. The risk
of an attack is further compounded by the increased likelihood of
litigation, including class actions, in the wake of such an attack.
Faced with that landscape, companies should leverage the
aforementioned resources wherever possible. [GN]
CONCHO RESOURCES: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") announces that on July
30, 2021, it filed a securities class action lawsuit, captioned
City of Warwick Retirement System v. Concho Resources Inc., No.
21-cv-2473 (S.D. Tex.) (the "Action"), on behalf of its client City
of Warwick Retirement System ("City of Warwick") against Concho
Resources, Inc. ("Concho" or the "Company"); ConocoPhillips,
successor-in-interest to Concho; and certain Concho officers and
directors (collectively, "Defendants"). The Action asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Concho from
February 21, 2018 through July 31, 2019, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), who were damaged thereby (the "Class").
At all relevant times, Concho was engaged in the acquisition,
development, and production of oil and natural gas in the Permian
Basin which is located in the southwestern part of the United
States. In 2018, as part of the Company's transition to large scale
oil and gas projects, Concho planned for, constructed, and began
operation of the Dominator pad ("Dominator"), a 23-well formation
located within the Permian Basin. During this time, Concho
repeatedly assured investors that its large-scale project
development, including at Dominator, generated cost savings,
optimized resource recovery, and was designed to mitigate
well-spacing risks. The Company also assured investors that its
well spacing at Dominator was a unique density test.
Contrary to these statements, however, on July 31, 2019, after the
close of trading, Concho shocked the market by revealing it had
been forced to scale back production in the Permian Basin,
attributing the disappointing news to problems caused by
aggressively tight well spacing at Dominator and other projects. On
this news, Concho shares declined approximately 22 percent in a
single day on August 1, 2019, erasing billions of dollars in the
market value of Concho's shares.
As a result of the foregoing, the Action alleges that Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements during the Class
Period regarding the Company's business and financial prospects.
Specifically, that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the well spacing at
Dominator was aggressive and highly risky, and premised on no
reasonable basis to believe it would work as intended; (2) Concho's
practice of implementing tighter well spacing was not relegated to
a handful of "tests" and therefore more widespread than the market
was led to believe; (3) it was known or recklessly disregarded that
any measures to mitigate well spacing risks were non-existent and
or/impossible; (4) these risks had manifested during the Class
Period, causing underground well interference and permanently
decreasing production, forcing the Company to scale back production
targets and adopt more conservative spacing measures in its other
projects; (5) it would take multiple quarters to unwind the impacts
of the widespread well spacing failure; and (6) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
If you purchased Concho common stock during the Class Period and
were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be
able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion
papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas no later than September 28, 2021. The Lead
Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of
the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to
share in any Class recovery in the Action. If you are a Class
member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that
recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your
choice to represent you in the Action.
If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any
questions about this lawsuit, you may contact David J. Schwartz,
Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via email at
dschwartz@labaton.com.
City of Warwick is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which
represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States
and internationally with combined assets under management of more
than $2 trillion. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its
excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked
in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York,
NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C. [GN]
CORMEDIX INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against CorMedix Inc. ('CorMedix' or
'the Company') (NASDAQ:CRMD) and certain of its officers, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired CorMedix
securities between July 8, 2020 and May 13, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/crmd.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) deficiencies existed with respect to DefenCath's
manufacturing process and/or at the facility responsible for
manufacturing DefenCath; (2) in light of the foregoing
deficiencies, the FDA was unlikely to approve the DefenCath NDA for
CRBSIs in its present form; (3) Defendants had downplayed the true
scope of the deficiencies with DefenCath's manufacturing process
and/or at the facility responsible for manufacturing DefenCath; and
(4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/crmd or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss inCorMedix
you have until September 20, 2021 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
CORMEDIX INC: Gross Law Reminds of September 20 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of CorMedix Inc.
(NASDAQ: CRMD).
Shareholders who purchased shares of CRMD during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
CONTACT US HERE:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/cormedix-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=18105&from=5
CLASS PERIOD : July 8, 2020 to May 13, 2021
ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) deficiencies existed with
respect to an investigational drug product, DefenCath's,
manufacturing process and/or at the facility responsible for
manufacturing DefenCath; (ii) in light of the foregoing
deficiencies, the Food and Drug Administration was unlikely to
approve the DefenCath new drug application for catheter-related
bloodstream infections in its present form; (iii) Defendants had
downplayed the true scope of the deficiencies with DefenCath's
manufacturing process and/or at the facility responsible for
manufacturing DefenCath; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
DEADLINE: September 20, 2021 Shareholders should not delay in
registering for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/cormedix-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=18105&from=5
NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of CRMD during the timeframe listed above, you
will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you
with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The
deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is September 20, 2021.
There is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case.
WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
CORMEDIX INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of September 20 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against CorMedix Inc.
("CorMedix" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: CRMD) 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 July 8,
2020 and May 13, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 20, 2021.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/3yrGYb0 to participate.
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. CorMedix suffered from deficiencies in
its manufacturing process for DefenCath. The FDA was unlikely to
approve the Company's NDA for DefenCath based on these
deficiencies. The Company downplayed the extent of these
manufacturing problems in its public statements. 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 CorMedix, 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.[GN]
CORMEDIX INC: Scott+Scott Reminds of September 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, announces the
filing of class action lawsuit against CorMedix Inc. ("CorMedix" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: CRMD) and certain of its officers and
directors alleging violations of federal securities laws. If you
purchased CorMedix securities between July 8, 2020 and May 13,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") you are encouraged to contact
Scott+Scott attorney Rhiana Swartz at (844) 818-6980 or
rswartz@scott-scott.com for additional information.
CorMedix is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on developing
and commercializing therapeutic products for the prevention and
treatment of infectious and inflammatory diseases in the U.S. and
internationally. The Company is focused on developing its lead
product candidate, DefenCath, a purported novel antibacterial and
antifungal solution designed to prevent costly and dangerous
catheter-related bloodstream infections.
The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) deficiencies existed with respect to DefenCath's
manufacturing process and/or at the facility responsible for
manufacturing DefenCath; (ii) in light of the foregoing
deficiencies, the FDA was unlikely to approve the DefenCath NDA for
catheter-related bloodstream infections in its present form; (iii)
the Company had downplayed the true scope of the deficiencies with
DefenCath's manufacturing process and/or at the facility
responsible for manufacturing DefenCath; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
On March 1, 2021, CorMedix issued a press release "announc[ing]
that the [FDA] cannot approve the [NDA] for DefenCath . . . in its
present form." CorMedix informed investors that the "FDA noted
concerns at the third-party manufacturing facility after a review
of records requested by FDA and provided by the manufacturing
facility"; that the "FDA did not specify the issues and CorMedix
intends to work with the manufacturing facility to develop a plan
for resolution when FDA informs the facility of the specific
concerns"; and that, "[w]hen we are informed of the issues, we will
schedule an investor conference call to provide an update on our
expected timeline for resolution."
On this news, CorMedix's stock price fell $5.98 per share, or
39.87%, to close at $9.02 per share on March 1, 2021.
Then, on April 14, 2021, the Company announced that CorMedix would
have to take additional steps to meet the FDA's requirements for
DefenCath's manufacturing process, and that it "may necessitate
adjustments in the process and generation of additional data on
operating parameters for manufacture of DefenCath."
On this news, CorMedix's stock price fell $1.44 per share, or
15.37%, to close at $7.93 per share on April 14, 2021.
What You Can Do
If you purchased CorMedix securities between July 8, 2020 and May
13, 2021, and you wish to discuss this lawsuit, please contact
attorney Rhiana Swartz at (844) 818-6980, or at
rswartz@scott-scott.com. The deadline to file for lead plaintiff is
September 20, 2021.
About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices
in New York, London, Amsterdam, Connecticut, Virginia, California,
and Ohio.
Attorney Advertising
View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210729005970/en/ [GN]
CREDIT COLLECTION: Walker Files TCPA Suit in C.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Collection
Partners, Inc. The case is styled as Jacob A. Walker, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credit Collection
Partners, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-03176-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill., July 29,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Credit Collection Partners (CCP) --
https://creditcollectionpartners.com/ -- is a debt collection
agency located in Taylorville, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Victor Thomas Metroff, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com
CREDITBOX.COM LLC: Hinsley Suit Remanded to New Mexico State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William P. Johnson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico remanded the case, TIFFANY HINSLEY,
Plaintiff v. CREDITBOX.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00281-WJ-GJF (D.N.M.), back to the First Judicial District
Court of the State of New Mexico.
In 2017, Plaintiff Hinsley entered into a series of loans with
Defendant CreditBox, an internet loan provider licensed in New
Mexico. In each loan, CreditBox required the use of debit
authorizations for repayment of the loan—so called "payday
loans," as defined in NMSA Section 58-15-2(H). The Plaintiff
alleges that the charges drawn from her account were significantly
more than was permitted under New Mexico law. For instance,
CreditBox imposed a finance charge on one loan in the amount of
$4,760.72, when finance charges were capped at $248.50 by NMSA
Section 58-15-33(A) through (D). Ultimately, the Plaintiff was
unable to pay back her loans, and CreditBox continued to demand
payment.
On Feb. 9, 2021, the Plaintiff filed her Class Complaint for
Damages in the First Judicial District Court, Rio Arriba County.
Therein, the Plaintiff alleges that CreditBox violated the UPA, and
asks the Court to void the allegedly unlawful loans CreditBox made
to the class members and enjoin CreditBox from collecting any
further interest on the loans. On March 26, 2021, CreditBox
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico.
The matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiff's Motion for
Remand. The Plaintiff submits that the Tenth Circuit's
anti-aggregation principle precludes aggregation of attorney's fees
in determining whether the amount in controversy meets the
threshold for federal jurisdiction. The Defendant responds that
recent caselaw from this District Court opens the door to
considering aggregated attorney's fees in the context of claims
brought under the New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act (the
"UPA"), NM Stat Section 57-12-10 (2019).
The Plaintiff challenges the Court's subject matter jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a), claiming that the Defendant has
failed to establish that the amount in controversy could possibly
exceed the $75,000 required for the case to remain in federal
court.
The parties do not dispute that diversity of citizenship exists.
The Plaintiff disputes whether the Defendant has met its burden
with respect to the amount in controversy for federal
jurisdiction.
Judge Johnson concludes that the Defendant has failed to show that
Section C of the UPA expressly provides for aggregated attorney's
fees under the requirements of Martin. Further, she says there is
no express language in the UPA allowing for aggregation of
attorney's fees for plaintiffs/class representatives in class
actions brought under the UPA. Accordingly, she will not aggregate
attorney's fees for purposes of the amount in controversy
calculation and will instead calculate such fees pro rata.
Under a pro rata apportioning of attorney's fees, the Plaintiff's
counsel would have to bill $5,700,860.17, with a class of 101, to
reach the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold. This would require the
Plaintiff's counsel to bill 22,803 hours at the current rate of
$250 per hour -- over two and a half full years of uninterrupted
billing -- which is by no means a "reasonable estimate of
attorney's fees."
The Judge holds that the Defendant has not shown that attorney's
fees calculated pro rata per class member could establish the
jurisdictional amount and has accordingly failed to prove that it
is legally possible for the jurisdictional amount to be met. The
Defendant having failed to meet its burden of proving
jurisdictional facts, the action is therefore remanded back to the
First Judicial District Court of the State of New Mexico.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/dn2f68ke from
Leagle.com.
CSI FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Roberts Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
BROOKE ROBERTS-GOODEN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CSI FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a
CLEARBALANCE HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-01352-BAS-BGS (S.D. Cal., July 27, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, invasion of privacy, unjust
enrichment, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, breach
of confidence, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and violations of California Unfair Competition Law and
the North Carolina Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant breached its duty and
betrayed the trust of the Plaintiff and Class members by failing to
properly safeguard and protect their personally identifiable
information. Due to the Defendant's failures and negligence, cyber
criminals infiltrated its inadequately protected email accounts and
gained access to confidential personal information and health
information of the Plaintiff and Class members beginning on at
least March 8, 2021. Moreover, the Defendant failed to timely
detect the data breach, failed to take adequate steps to prevent
and stop the data breach, failed to disclose the material facts
that it did not have adequate security practices in place to
safeguard the personal information, failed to honor its promises
and representations to protect the Plaintiff's and Class members'
personal information, and failed to provide timely and adequate
notice of the data breach.
CSI Financial Services, LLC, doing business as ClearBalance
Holdings, LLC, is a provider of patient financing programs to U.S.
hospitals and health systems. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bibianne U. Fell, Esq.
FELL LAW, P.C.
l1956 Bernardo Plaza Dr. #53l,
San Diego, CA 92128
Telephone: (858) 201-3960
E-mail: bibi@fellfirm.com
- and –
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Wickens Herzer Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wickens Herzer Panza and Guin, Stokes & Evans, LLC announce that
the Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas has approved the following
announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would
benefit persons with unclaimed property or funds held by Cuyahoga
County:
CUYAHOGA COUNTY UNCLAIMED PROPERTY SETTLEMENT ANNOUNCED
Re: Proposed class action settlement in the lawsuit Gattozzi v.
Treasurer of Cuyahoga County, Case No. CV-14-831933 in the Cuyahoga
Court of Common Pleas.
A proposed settlement has been reached in the above-referenced
class action lawsuit. In that lawsuit, the plaintiff alleges that
persons with unclaimed property or funds held by Cuyahoga County
should have been paid interest by the County when their unclaimed
property was returned to them. The lawsuit seeks to recover that
interest. The settlement, if approved by the Court, will result in
payments to certain persons to whom Cuyahoga County had returned
their unclaimed property or funds to them.
The people affected by this proposed settlement - known as the
"class members" - are the people who come within the following
definition: "All persons or entities, excluding members of the
federal or state of Ohio judiciary assigned to adjudicate in this
action, who received funds on or after August 28, 2010, that were
held by defendant, whether or not denominated as unclaimed funds or
property, and who, upon receipt of such funds, were not paid the
actual interest or earnings or constructive interest earned on
those funds or just compensation for such."
Cuyahoga County and the other defendants deny liability and fault
but the parties in the lawsuit have agreed to settle and dismiss
the lawsuit without any admission of liability or fault by the
defendants, subject to court approval.
If the settlement is approved, class members may receive funds from
the settlement and will release all claims relating to unclaimed
property against Cuyahoga County and the other defendants. Class
members have the right to object to the settlement and to the
plaintiff's counsel's requested attorneys' fees and expense
request, but must do so by September 15, 2021.
To get more information about the lawsuit, the pending settlement,
and your rights, please NOW contact the Settlement Administrator,
Strategic Claims Services (SCS) by:
Visiting the SCS website at www.strategicclaims.net;
E-mailing SCS at info@strategicclaims.net; or
Phoning SCS toll-free at 1-866-274-4004
DO NOT DIRECT QUESTIONS TO THE COURT OR ITS STAFF.
All statements in this press release are, if different from or in
conflict with the terms of the Parties' written and executed
Settlement Agreement, subject to and controlled by the terms of the
Settlement Agreement. Any conflict between this press release and
the Settlement Agreement will be resolved by reference to the
Settlement Agreement.[GN]
CYCLE-TEX INC: Grange Mutual Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cycle-Tex, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Grange Mutual Casualty Company v.
Cycle-Tex, Inc., Jarrod Johnson, individually, and on Behalf of a
Class of persons similarly situated, Case No. 4:21-cv-00147-AT
(N.D. Ga., July 30, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Declaratory
Judgment.
Cycle-Tex, Inc. -- http://www.cycletex.com/-- operates as a
recycling company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary Lewis, Esq.
HAWKINS PARNELL & YOUNG, LLP-GA
303 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4000
Atlanta, GA 30308-3243
Phone: (404) 614-7400
Fax: (404) 614-7500
Email: zlewis@hptylaw.com
D'YOUVILLE COLLEGE: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D'Youville College.
The case is styled as Arturo Stevez, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. D'Youville College, Case No.
1:21-cv-06469 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
D'Youville College -- http://www.dyc.edu/-- is a private college
in Buffalo, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
DIGNITY HEALTH: Class Conditionally Certified in 2nd Darling Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TOMERY DARLING AND ANA JARA, Plaintiffs v. DIGNITY
HEALTH, DIGNITY COMMUNITY CARE, AND DIGNITY HEATH MEDICAL GROUP
NEVADA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-CV-2453-YGR (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the motion for conditional
certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiffs Tomery Darling and Ana Jara filed the putative
collective and class action against Defendants Dignity Health,
Dignity Community Care ("DCC"), and Dignity Health Medical Group
Nevada LLC ("DHMGN"), asserting wage-and-hour violations under
federal, California, and Nevada law. The Plaintiffs allege that
Defendant healthcare providers systematically failed to compensate
their employees for off-the-clock work charting patient notes.
The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint alleges six causes of
action against all three Defendants. Plaintiff Darling alleges a
claim for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"),
Cal. Business & Professions Code section 17200 (Second Cause of
Action), based on predicate violations of several provisions of the
California Labor Code. Plaintiff Jara alleges claims for failure
to pay overtime in violation of the FLSA (First Cause of Action)
and claims under Nevada law for failure to pay minimum wage,
failure to pay overtime, interrupted meal breaks, and untimely
payment upon termination (Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Causes of
Action). Only Jara's claim under the FLSA, on behalf of herself
and the members of the "FLSA Class" ("Collective Action") alleged
in the SAC, is at issue in the instant motion for conditional
certification.
The Plaintiffs allege that documentation of patient care notes,
known as "charting," is an "integral, indispensable and legally
necessary" task of the healthcare jobs in which they were employed,
both for patient care and medical billing. The Defendants required
the Plaintiffs and the other similarly situated employees to do
their charting while at their place of employment. The Cerner
system records a time and date stamp for all entries into the
system. The Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendants required
all hourly paid employees to record their hours worked by clocking
in and out of a separate electronic timekeeping system called
Teams.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants "systematically
understaffed" their facilities such that the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated employees were required to input patient care
information in the Cerner system by working before the start of
their shift, during their meal breaks, or after their scheduled
shift, i.e., "off-the-clock." They allege that the Defendants and
their agents were aware that the Plaintiffs were working without
compensation since they were required to be physically present at
the Defendants' facilities in order to enter patient care notes,
and the Cerner system recorded the times that plaintiffs made their
charting entries. They further allege that the Defendants' agents
would routinely observe plaintiffs and similarly situated employees
making their EMR entries "off-the-clock," and the Defendants were
informed that patient care employees routinely completed EMR
charting during time periods for which they were not compensated.
Based on these allegations and the evidence submitted with the
Plaintiffs' motion, Jara seeks conditional certification of the
following FLSA collective action: All nonexempt hourly paid patient
care employees who made entries in the electronic medical record
(EMR) system but who were not clocked into the timekeeping system
and who were employed by Defendants in the United States at any
time during the relevant time period alleged therein. She also
seeks approval to circulate the proposed notice and consent form to
potential plaintiffs in the collective action. Following the July
13, 2021 hearing, the parties submitted a revised proposed notice
to the Court. The revised proposed notice asserts that the
collective action includes all those who meet the definition from
Aug. 27, 2017, to the present.
Since the case was first filed on Aug. 27, 2020, eight individuals
have opted into the collective action. Each of the opt-in
Plaintiffs joins Jara in the instant motion. The opt-in plaintiffs
have submitted declarations attesting that they were required to
clock in and out of the timekeeping system by swiping their badges
at the scheduled start and end of their shifts, but would be
required to complete their charting work when clocked out of the
timekeeping system, or during times when they were supposed to
receive a meal break, "in order to meet patient metrics."
Judge Rogers holds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently
established that the members of the FLSA collective are "alike in
ways that matter to the disposition of their FLSA claims." Whether
the Plaintiffs' contentions regarding the Defendants' actual or
constructive knowledge of the collective members' unpaid work will
be "borne out by a fully developed record" remains to be determined
in later proceedings.
For these reasons, Judge Rogers grants the motion for conditional
certification of an FLSA collective action as against Defendants
Dignity Health and DHMGN only, and approved the revised proposed
form of collective notice for distribution. Her Order terminates
Docket No. 42.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/557ea2np from Leagle.com.
DIGNITY HEALTH: FLSA Class Conditionally Certified in Darling Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TOMERY DARLING AND ANA JARA, Plaintiffs v. DIGNITY
HEALTH, DIGNITY COMMUNITY CARE, AND DIGNITY HEATH MEDICAL GROUP
NEVADA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-CV-6043-YGR (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the motion for conditional
certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiffs Tomery Darling and Ana Jara filed the putative
collective and class action against Defendants Dignity Health,
Dignity Community Care ("DCC"), and Dignity Health Medical Group
Nevada LLC ("DHMGN"), asserting wage-and-hour violations under
federal, California, and Nevada law. The Plaintiffs allege that
Defendant healthcare providers systematically failed to compensate
their employees for off-the-clock work charting patient notes.
The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint alleges six causes of
action against all three Defendants. Plaintiff Darling alleges a
claim for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"),
Cal. Business & Professions Code section 17200 (Second Cause of
Action), based on predicate violations of several provisions of the
California Labor Code. Plaintiff Jara alleges claims for failure
to pay overtime in violation of the FLSA (First Cause of Action)
and claims under Nevada law for failure to pay minimum wage,
failure to pay overtime, interrupted meal breaks, and untimely
payment upon termination (Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Causes of
Action). Only Jara's claim under the FLSA, on behalf of herself
and the members of the "FLSA Class" ("Collective Action") alleged
in the SAC, is at issue in the instant motion for conditional
certification.
The Plaintiffs allege that documentation of patient care notes,
known as "charting," is an "integral, indispensable and legally
necessary" task of the healthcare jobs in which they were employed,
both for patient care and medical billing. The Defendants required
the Plaintiffs and the other similarly situated employees to do
their charting while at their place of employment. The Cerner
system records a time and date stamp for all entries into the
system. The Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendants required
all hourly paid employees to record their hours worked by clocking
in and out of a separate electronic timekeeping system called
Teams.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants "systematically
understaffed" their facilities such that the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated employees were required to input patient care
information in the Cerner system by working before the start of
their shift, during their meal breaks, or after their scheduled
shift, i.e., "off-the-clock." They allege that the Defendants and
their agents were aware that the Plaintiffs were working without
compensation since they were required to be physically present at
the Defendants' facilities in order to enter patient care notes,
and the Cerner system recorded the times that plaintiffs made their
charting entries. They further allege that the Defendants' agents
would routinely observe plaintiffs and similarly situated employees
making their EMR entries "off-the-clock," and the Defendants were
informed that patient care employees routinely completed EMR
charting during time periods for which they were not compensated.
Based on these allegations and the evidence submitted with the
Plaintiffs' motion, Jara seeks conditional certification of the
following FLSA collective action: All nonexempt hourly paid patient
care employees who made entries in the electronic medical record
(EMR) system but who were not clocked into the timekeeping system
and who were employed by Defendants in the United States at any
time during the relevant time period alleged therein. She also
seeks approval to circulate the proposed notice and consent form to
potential plaintiffs in the collective action. Following the July
13, 2021 hearing, the parties submitted a revised proposed notice
to the Court. The revised proposed notice asserts that the
collective action includes all those who meet the definition from
Aug. 27, 2017, to the present.
Since the case was first filed on Aug. 27, 2020, eight individuals
have opted into the collective action. Each of the opt-in
Plaintiffs joins Jara in the instant motion. The opt-in plaintiffs
have submitted declarations attesting that they were required to
clock in and out of the timekeeping system by swiping their badges
at the scheduled start and end of their shifts, but would be
required to complete their charting work when clocked out of the
timekeeping system, or during times when they were supposed to
receive a meal break, "in order to meet patient metrics."
Judge Rogers holds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently
established that the members of the FLSA collective are "alike in
ways that matter to the disposition of their FLSA claims." Whether
the Plaintiffs' contentions regarding the Defendants' actual or
constructive knowledge of the collective members' unpaid work will
be "borne out by a fully developed record" remains to be determined
in later proceedings.
For these reasons, Judge Rogers grants conditional certification of
a collective action on the FLSA claim against Defendants Dignity
Health and DHMGN and approves the collective action notice. Her
Order terminates Docket No. 42.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/28fwjxne from Leagle.com.
DTE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over June Mass Flooding
------------------------------------------------------
Cara BallPosted, writing for WXYZ, reports that a class-action
lawsuit has been brought against DTE Energy, the company that
services the metro Detroit area, in connection to the June mass
flooding.
The lawsuit, which is being represented by Liddle & Dubin P.C. law
firm, alleges that DTE "failed to take reasonable steps to repair
and maintain the power instrumentalities at the Ludden substation
that provided electricity to the critical Freud Pumping Station in
Detroit."
The law firm states that more than 2,500 residents from seven metro
Detroit cities have expressed interest in the lawsuit.
"These flooding events should not have happened. We know from
experience that it is crucial to investigate these cases before
filing to ensure that we know what happened and who is responsible.
We have devoted a considerable amount of time and resources to
determining what caused the catastrophic flooding of thousands of
homes and who is responsible," said David Dubin, an attorney with
Liddle & Dubin P.C. "This case, and the others that will be filed
in the coming weeks, will encompass all of the necessary parties
whose conduct we believe contributed to this widespread basement
flooding, and hopefully get the people the relief they deserve."
Dubin adds that this is just the first of many more lawsuits to
come against "several other entities" that allegedly played a part
in the damage of several homes due to flooding.
DTE spokesperson Jill Wilmot said in a statement to 7 Action News
that, "DTE does not comment on litigation." [GN]
EMPOWER FEDERAL: Bailey Sues Over Illegal Charges on Debit Accounts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHIREE BAILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EMPOWER FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00843-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y., July 26, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for breach of contract and violations
of the New York General Business Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's unfair assessment and
collection of overdraft (OD) fees on transactions where there are
sufficient funds to cover them or also known as Authorize Positive,
Purportedly Settle Negative (APPSN) transactions. Despite putting
aside sufficient available funds for debit card transactions at the
time those transactions are authorized, the Defendant later
assesses OD fees on those same transactions when they purportedly
settle days later into a negative balance. As a result of the
Defendant's alleged improper OD fee charges, the Plaintiff and
Class members have sustained damages.
Empower Federal Credit Union is a full-service financial
institution that provides savings, loan, and transaction services,
with main offices located in Syracuse, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielgold.com
EXCELSIOR COLLEGE: Jolly's Bid to Reopen Castellaw Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAROLINE CASTELLAW, et al., Plaintiffs v. EXCELSIOR
COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-1048 (PKC) (RLM) (E.D.N.Y.),
Judge Pamela K. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York overrules the Plaintiff's objection and adopts
in substantial part Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann's Report and
Recommendation.
Judge Mann's thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation
("R&R") recommended that Maketa Jolly's "Motion to Supplement His
Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment or, in the Alternative, for
Relief from Final Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)" and
"Motion for Reopening Due to Federal Damages Violations of Bivens,
Fraud on the Court" be denied.
On April 15, 2021, Plaintiff Jolly, proceeding pro se, sought to
reopen the over seven-year-old class action -- which settled and
was dismissed with prejudice in July 2015 -- by filing a "Motion to
Supplement His Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment or, in the
Alternative, for Relief from Final Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b)." On April 26, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a "Motion
for Reopening Due to Federal Damages Violations of Bivens, Fraud on
the Court." On May 17, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Set
Aside/Re-open New Evidence." By orders on April 28, May 5, and May
21, 2021, the Court referred these motions to the Hon. Roanne L.
Mann, Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1).
On June 21, 2021, Judge Mann issued a R&R recommending that the
motions be denied as untimely and, in any event, frivolous. Judge
Mann also recommended, given the Plaintiff's "ongoing practice of
filing frivolous and repetitive letters, motions and lawsuits,"
that a filing injunction be imposed on the Plaintiff, requiring her
to seek and obtain advance leave of the Court before making future
filings, and that the Plaintiff be warned that violations will be
punishable by monetary sanctions.
On July 9, 2021, the Plaintiff timely filed an objection, styled as
a "Response to Report and Recommendation," to which she attached
over 150 pages of exhibits.
Discussion
I. The Court Adopts the Recommendation to Deny Plaintiff's Request
to Reopen
Judge Chen finds that the Plaintiff's "Response to Report and
Recommendation," including its attached exhibits, does not make any
specific objections to the R&R. Rather, the response appears to
rehash arguments, based on events occurring well after this case
settled, that courts have rejected multiple times.
Having carefully reviewed the record and Judge Mann's R&R, Judge
Chen, finds no error -- clear or otherwise -- with Judge Mann's
thoroughly-considered conclusion that the Plaintiff's instant
motions "renew meritless arguments, which the Court has already
rejected and that are not viable under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
II. The Court Substantially Adopts the Recommendation to Impose a
Filing Injunction
Judge Mann also recommends that a filing injunction be imposed
against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff makes no particular objection
to this proposal. She was placed on notice of the possibility of a
filing injunction and, moreover, was warned that "failure to file
objections in a timely manner may waive a right to appeal." Yet,
the Plaintiff failed to make any specific objections to the
recommended filing injunction -- and instead, filed a response
simply rehashing similar arguments and grievances. Accordingly,
the Judge finds it appropriate to impose a filing injunction,
limited to this particular case, requiring the Plaintiff to obtain
permission from the Court each time before making any submission,
by filing a one-page letter showing cause why the submission should
be accepted.
In addition, as recommended by Judge Mann, Judge Chen warns the
Plaintiff that she could be monetarily sanctioned if she violates
this injunction with respect to the case. However, at this time,
the Judge does not enjoin the Plaintiff from making filings in
other cases, but again warns her that if she continues to file
frivolous complaints or other documents that simply reiterate
previously rejected arguments, the Court may impose additional
sanctions, including monetary sanctions and/or a broader filing
injunction, which could include requiring Plaintiff to attach any
sanction order to any proposed filing.
Conclusion
Judge Chen adopts Judge Mann's thorough and well-reasoned Report
and Recommendation in substantial part. The Plaintiff's motions to
reopen the case and/or for relief from judgment are denied. In
addition, going forward, before making any submission in the case,
the Plaintiff is required each time to obtain permission from the
Court by filing a one-page letter showing cause why the submission
should be accepted. Failure to do so will result in the submission
not being accepted, and may result in monetary sanctions. The
Plaintiff is also warned that continuing to file frivolous
complaints or other documents may result in additional sanctions,
including monetary sanctions and/or a broader filing injunction.
The case remains closed.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/383776ht from Leagle.com.
FEDCAP REHABILITATION: Court Stays Class Cert. Briefing in King
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as King v. Fedcap
Rehabilitation Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-Civ-1784-VSB-SDA
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered an order
staying briefing of Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Collective
Certification pending a decision on the Defendants' forthcoming
Motion to Enforce Settlement.
As previously explained to this Court, and as the Defendants'
forthcoming Motion to Enforce Settlement will establish, the
parties have reached a fully enforceable settlement agreement
resolving this case in its entirety, pending judicial approval
under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir.
2015).
Indeed, on February 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal because the parties agreed to settle.
Subsequently, in May 2021, and after the parties reduced the
settlement agreement to writing, Counsel for Plaintiff -- not
Plaintiff -- attempted to renege on the agreement reached between
the parties. Unable to resolve the dispute via mediation, on July
2, 2021, Defendants proposed a "briefing schedule in connection
with [their] anticipated motion to enforce the settlement agreement
reached between Defendants and Plaintiff Harold King."
On July 6, 2021, this Court endorsed Defendants' briefing schedule.
On July 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Conditional
Collective Certification. This surprised the Defendants. At no
point prior to July 22 did Plaintiff reveal an intention to file a
motion for conditional certification before the settlement issue
was fully resolved. Plaintiff did not seek to confer with
Defendants about the timing of such a motion.
Fedcap is a Manhattan-based not-for-profit organization that
provides vocational training and employment resources to those who
face barriers to employment such as people with all kinds of
disabilities and employment-related barriers.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yl5UAP at no extra charge.[CC]
FIRST FINANCIAL: Goodman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First Financial Asset
Mgmt, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Goodman, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. First Financial Asset
Mgmt, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-04260 (E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
First Financial Asset Management, Inc. -- https://1fam.com/ -- is a
collection agency located in Peachtree Corners, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 210-7272
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com
FIRST MERCHANTS: Stelter Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jon Stelter, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. First Merchants Bank, Case No.
18C03-2106-PL-000072 was removed from the Delaware Circuit Court to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on
July 29, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-02132-JMS-MG to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
First Merchants -- https://www.firstmerchants.com/ -- is the
largest financial services holding company in Central Indiana,
commercial banking, credit card services, mortgage, trust
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Kay Dee Baird, Esq.
KRIEG DEVAULT LLP (Indianapolis)
One Indiana Square, Suite 2800
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 636-4341
Fax: (317) 636-1507
Email: kbaird@kdlegal.com
- and -
Scott Stuart Morrisson, Esq.
KRIEG DEVAULT LLP
12800 North Meridian Street, Suite 300
Carmel, IN 46032
Phone: (317) 566-1110
Fax: (317) 636-1507
Email: smorrisson@kdlegal.com
FORD MOTOR: Simmons Suit Seeks to Certify Four Classes
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARENCE SIMMONS, et al.,
v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 9:18-cv-81558-RAR (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting class
certification to:
-- Unfair or Deceptive Design Defect Class
"All current owners who purchased a new or used model year
2013-2016 Ford Mustang, model year 2013-2017 Ford
Expedition, or model year 2013-2018 Ford Explorer from a
Ford dealership in California, Florida, or New York;"
-- Unfair or Deceptive Warranty Class (Ineffective Repair)
All current owners who purchased a new or used model year
2013-2016 Ford Mustang, model year 2013-2017 Ford
Expedition, or model year 2013-2018 Ford Explorer from a
Ford dealership in California, Florida, or New York;"
-- Unfair or Deceptive Warranty Class (Perforation)
All current owners who purchased a new or used model year
2013-2015 Ford Mustang, model year 2013-2015 Ford
Expedition, or model year 2013-2015 Ford Explorer from a
Ford dealership in California, Florida, or New York;" and
-- Unjust Enrichment Class
"All current owners who purchased a new or used model year
2013-2016 Ford Mustang, model year 2013-2017 Ford
Expedition, or model year 2013-2018 Ford Explorer from a
Ford dealership in California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana,
New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, or Pennsylvania.
The Plaintiffs contend that for years, the Defendant Ford engaged
in serious deceptive and unfair acts and practices in concealing a
design defect common to each Class Vehicle! that exists at the hem
of the hood. To prevent corrosion, the hem -- where the hood’s
outer panel wraps over and joins with the inner panel -- must be
kept dry. To keep the hem dry, the hem must be sealed wherever it
is "closed." By design, however, the closed hems of the Class
Vehicles' hoods are not sealed ("Design Defect"). As a result of
this Design Defect, the hoods are defective and susceptible to
premature corrosion.
The Plaintiffs seek to hold Ford liable for other related deceptive
and unfair acts and practices as well. In two distinct ways, Ford
provided deceptive, unfair, and otherwise unconscionable watranty
coverage to consumers.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 23, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fpVl7X at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
E-mail: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
edwoskin@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Robert E. Gordon, Esq.
Steven G. Calamusa, Esq.
Daniel G. Williams, Esq.
GORDON & PARTNERS
4114 Northlake Blvd., Suite 200
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Telephone: (561) 799-5070
Facsimile: (561) 799-4050
E-mail: rgordon@fortheinjured.com
scalamusa@fortheinjured.com
dwilliams@fortheinjured.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq.
Michael A. Innes, Esq.
Zachary S. Bower, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
cbartlett@carellabyrne.com
minnes@carellabyrne.com
Facsmile: (973) 994-1744
zbower@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Adam M. Schachter, Esq.
Brian W. Toth, Esq.
GELBER SCHACHTER &
GREENBERG, P.A.
1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2010
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 728-0950
E-mail; aschachter@gsgpa.com
btoth@gsgpa.com
efilings@gsgpa.com
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Berger Montague Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger Montague reminds investors of the upcoming deadline of
August 2, 2021 for investors to seek lead plaintiff status in a
securities fraud class action against Frequency Therapeutics, Inc.
("Frequency" or the "Company") on behalf of investors who purchased
Frequency securities (NASDAQ: FREQ) between November 16, 2020 and
March 22, 2021 (the "Class Period").
If you purchased Frequency securities during the Class Period, have
questions concerning your rights or interests, or would like to
discuss Berger Montague's investigation, please contact attorneys
Andrew Abramowitz at aabramowitz@bm.net or (215) 875-3015, or
Donnell Much at dmuch@bm.net or (215) 875-4667, or contact us at
www.bergermontague.com/frequency.
Whistleblowers: Anyone with non-public information regarding
Frequency is encouraged to confidentially assist Berger Montague's
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.
Under this program, whistleblowers who provide original information
may receive rewards totaling up to thirty percent (30%) of
recoveries obtained by the SEC. For more information, contact us.
Frequency is a Massachusetts-based pharmaceutical company focused
on the development of treatments for hearing loss, including its
drug "FX-322." The Company has conducted several clinical studies
evaluating the safety and effectiveness of FX-322, the most
significant of which was a Phase 2a study that began in October
2019. According to a recently filed lawsuit, Defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Frequency's
development and commercialization of FX-322 was not producing the
results desired by Frequency; and (2) FX-322's ongoing clinical
study was not as positive as Frequency portrayed it.
On March 23, 2021, Frequency disclosed in a press release
disappointing interim results of the Phase 2a study, revealing that
subjects with mild to moderate SNHL did not demonstrate
improvements in hearing measures versus placebo. On this news,
Frequency's shares fell $28.30, or 78%, to close at $7.99 per
share, thereby damaging investors.
In addition, beginning in April 2020, Frequency's CEO, David L.
Lucchino, began selling his shares of Frequency, liquidating more
than 350,000 shares for proceeds of over $10.5 million.
Berger Montague, with offices in Philadelphia, Minneapolis,
Washington, D.C., and San Diego, has been a pioneer in securities
class action litigation since its founding in 1970. Berger Montague
has represented individual and institutional investors for over
five decades and serves as lead counsel in courts throughout the
United States.
Contacts:
Andrew Abramowitz, Senior Counsel
Berger Montague
(215) 875-3015
aabramowitz@bm.net
Donnell Much, Associate
Berger Montague
(215) 875-4667
dmuch@bm.net [GN]
GAZELLE CAFE LLC: Xiloj Hits Misclassification, Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Xiloj, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Gazelle Cafe LLC, Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-02339, (S.D. Tex., July 19, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, meal and rest periods, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.
Defendant operates a Mediterranean restaurant and hookah lounge in
Houston, Texas, where Xiloj worked as a kitchen worker from January
27, 2021 to approximately May 16, 2021. He claims to have regularly
worked more than 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week but not paid
any additional wages for overtime due to being misclassified as an
independent contractor. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
Email: marbuckle@eeoc.net
rprieto@eeoc.net
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Android Users' Hidden Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Meyer at fortune.com reports that Google faces a form of
class-action lawsuit in the U.K., with the central allegation being
that its 30% commission on Android-based digital purchases amounts
to hidden fees for Android users. Those backing the suit claim
Google could be on the hook for more than $1.2 billion.
Google's and Apple's large cut of app-store and in-app purchases
has become a hot legal topic of late, particularly since Epic Games
sued both mobile-ecosystem giants over the issue nearly a year ago.
State attorneys general have sued Google in the U.S. over the
allegedly monopolistic practice, EU antitrust regulators have
charged Apple, and regulators have launched probes in South Korea
(regarding Google) and in the U.K. (regarding Apple).
Now comes the U.K. collective action, which is being fronted by
"consumer champion" Liz Coll, a former consumer policy lead at the
charitable organization Citizens Advice. Coll and the lawyers
assisting the suit, Hausfeld & Co., say they are acting on behalf
of around 19.5 million people in the U.K. who have bought apps or
in-app digital content, services, or subscriptions since Oct. 1,
2015.
"Google created the Android app marketplace, and controls it with a
vice-like grip," Coll said in a statement. "Customers are herded
towards the Google Play store, and once there have no option but to
pay a 30% fee whenever they buy an app or make an in-app purchase.
Competing app stores, which could give the same service at a
fraction of the price, never get a look in.
"Google is a gatekeeper to so many digital services, and it has a
responsibility not to abuse that position and overcharge ordinary
consumers. These hidden charges are unlawful, and Google's
customers deserve compensation, and better treatment from Google in
future."
The suit does not cover app-based purchases of physical goods and
services like Uber and Deliveroo-which don't incur Google's
commission-nor does it cover purchases made within Google's own
apps.
Google had not replied to a request for comment at the time of
publication.
Hausfeld also led a similar suit in May, targeting Apple for the
same practices, on behalf of up to 19.6 million U.K. users-Android
and iOS each hold about half the U.K. mobile market. On that
occasion, the suit was filed by Rachael Kent, a digital-economy
professor at King's College London.
This is not the first time Google has been hit with a collective
legal action in the U.K., though the last suit was about privacy
rather than antitrust.
In 2017, another consumer champion named Richard Lloyd-a veteran
activist who is now on the board of the Financial Conduct
Authority-sued Google on behalf of iPhone users whose browsing
information had been scooped up by Google in a circumvention of
Safari's tracking protections.
However, that suit foundered at the High Court the following year,
because the judge said Google's privacy-busting behavior didn't
actually damage consumers, even though it was arguably "wrongful
and a breach of duty." [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class-Action in London Over App Store Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gareth Corfield at theregister.com reports that yet another
anti-Big Tech group litigation lawsuit has been launched in London.
This time it's targeting Google, claims to be on behalf of 19
million Android users, seeks up to GBP920m in damages, and pretty
much mirrors Epic Games' lawsuit against the Chocolate Factory over
app store charges.
Kicked off in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), this sueball
was flung by one Liz Coll, billed as a "consumer champion". In a
canned statement she said: "Google created the Android app
marketplace, and controls it with a vice-like grip. Customers are
herded towards the Google Play Store, and once there have no option
but to pay a 30 per cent fee whenever they buy an app or make an
in-app purchase."
If this sounds familiar, back in January Epic Games also launched a
lawsuit against Google in the CAT, alleging that Google was
infringing Britain's competition laws by taking a 30 per cent cut
from all Google Play Store transactions. In that case Epic seeks
damages for itself over Google kicking Fortnite out of the Play
Store; here Coll seeks damages on behalf of 19.5 million UK Android
users.
As is usual for these kinds of lawsuits, there's a deep-pocketed
commercial fund behind Coll's anti-Google case: that fund is
US-owned Vannin Capital, last seen in the news after abandoning a
planned 2018 IPO and then being bought out by New York HQ'd
Fortress Investment Group. At the time, a legal news site reckoned
Vannin was trying to raise GBP70bn.
Coll and Vannin seek GBP920m from Google, which equates to GBP47.18
per each allegedly affected Android user. However, that sum is far
too simplistic; litigation funders normally demand a hefty cut of
the damages, and in the original lawsuit which kickstarted all
these Big Tech group litigation cases, the funder was in line for
billions if its side won. Any payout could be more than halved once
the funder and the lawyers have had their pound of flesh.
London's courts have become a popular venue in the last couple of
years for not-quite-class-action lawsuits targeting Big Tech
companies. This was all kicked off by former Which? director
Richard Lloyd and Therium Litigation Funding IC, another for-profit
litigation funder. They scored a Court of Appeal victory in 2019
that opened the floodgates for these kinds of lawsuits by loosening
rules on "class action"* lawsuits in the English courts.
Cynics might say for-profit litigation means that while lawsuits
are brought in the names of millions of allegedly wronged people,
the a good proportion of any compensation payouts might end up in
the pockets of lawyers and venture capital funds. Advocates of
these cases argue that distributing a few pounds to some affected
users is better than the GBP0.00 members of the public receive when
State agencies fine misbehaving companies for breaking the law.
Lawnote
*English law doesn't have class actions under that name, though to
the man on the Clapham omnibus the "representative action" and
"group litigation" procedures are pretty much the same thing. [GN]
GORDON DESSERTS: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gordon Desserts, Inc.
The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Gordon Desserts, Inc. doing
business as: Mochidoki, Case No. 1:21-cv-06506 (S.D.N.Y., July 30,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mochidoki -- https://mochidoki.com/ -- is an ice cream shop, a
sleek stop for creative mochi ice cream treats, cold brew, tea &
matcha drinks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Delcham Sues Over Unpaid Adjusters' Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
HAROLD DELCHAM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY INC.
d/b/a GEICO, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-cv-01204-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.,
July 27, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate
the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated adjusters overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly paid
adjuster in West Palm Beach, Florida from approximately March 2017
to November 2017 and Orlando, Florida from approximately December
2017 to April 2019.
Government Employees Insurance Company Inc., doing business as
GEICO, is an American auto insurance company with its principal
place of business in Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Tamra Givens, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
tgivens@shavitzlaw.com
- and –
Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (800) 616-4000
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com
- and –
Carolyn H. Cottrell, 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
- 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
GOVERNMENT EMPLYOYEES: Szafran Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Szafran, Joseph Boyle, Servando Villavicencio, and
Kashayla Unis, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Government Employees Insurance
Company Inc. (GEICO), Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-01975 (D. Colo.,
July 21, 2021), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum
wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act and the Colorado Overtime and
Minimum Pay Standards Orders.
GEICO is in the business of providing vehicle insurance, property
insurance and business insurance. Plaintiffs are former non-exempt,
hourly employees who worked as Auto Claim and/or Damage Adjusters
for GEICO in Colorado. They claim to have performed off-the-clock
work for which they are not adequately compensated. They claim to
be regularly required by GEICO management to work additional hours
beyond this scheduled time while off-the-clock and without
receiving compensation. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Tamra Givens, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
tgivens@shavitzlaw.com
- and -
Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (800) 616-4000
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com
- and -
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
David C. Leimbach, Esq.
Brett D. Watson, Esq.
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Tel: (415) 421-7100
Fax: (415) 421-7105
Email: 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
Email: paige.bennett@dtlawyers.com
HARDSCOOP INC: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hardscoop Inc. The
case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Hardscoop Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-06501 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hardscoop -- https://hardscoop.com/ --is a federally permitted
distillery and winery that creates desserts for adults.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
HILLY ACRE: St. John's Lawyer Launches Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A St. John's lawyer says that egg recall last fall made some people
in Newfoundland and Labrador very sick. Hence, the reason for a
class action lawsuit against Hilly Acre Farms, the Nova Scotia
based producer of the eggs, which were contaminated with
salmonella.
Bob Buckingham says clients who retained his firm suffered severe
symptoms of salmonella poisoning, resulting in admissions to
hospital and in some instances many months of antibiotic
treatment.
The eggs were sold under various brand names including Compliments,
No Name, Great Value, Maritime Pride, Nova Eggs, Nova Eggs Ultra,
Farmer John Eyking and Eyking Delite.
Buckingham says there were 25 confirmed cases of salmonella
poisoning in this province linked to eggs produced by Hilly Acre
Farms.
He is inviting anyone who developed serious symptoms but did not
receive a formal diagnosis to contact the firm. There is a form on
their website. [GN]
HM FOODS LLC: Rios Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Rios, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HM Foods LLC and Homan Mofidi,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01227 (C.D. Cal., July 19,
2021), seeks all available relief, including compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Portal-to-Portal Act,
California Unfair Competition Law and California Labor Code.
Defendants operate a restaurant called "The Local" where Rios is a
kitchen worker from February 7, 2017 through approximately March
2020. He claims to regularly work in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek without any overtime wages. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
Email: rprieto@eeoc.net
- and -
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
Email: marbuckle@eeoc.net
HOOVESTOL INC: Proposed Class Cert. Deadline Tossed in Hardwick
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS HARDWICK,
individually and on behalf of the general public as private
attorneys general, v. HOOVESTOL, INC., a Minnesota corporation, and
DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-07505-DMG-MAA (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an order denying the Parties'
Joint Request because, March 18, 2022, the new proposed deadline
for Plaintiff to file his Motion for Class Certification, is
completely at odds with the rest of the Schedule of Pretrial and
Trial dates
While the Court is pleased that the parties wish to engage in
mediation, the parties have had ample time to do so. The parties
have proposed a new deadline for the class certification motion
without any explanation whatsoever as to how the new deadline would
be coordinated with the other existing dates and deadlines. "A
scheduling order 'is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered,
which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.'
Disregard of the order would undermine the court's ability to
control its docket, disrupt the agreed-upon course of the
litigation, and reward the indolent and cavalier."
A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TRQBkb at no extra charge.[CC]
HOST INTERNATIONAL: Schroeder Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARLA SCHROEDER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HOST INTERNATIONAL, INC., a 350 West First Street Los Angeles, CA
90012 Delaware Corporation and DOE 1 through and including DOE 50,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00428-MCS-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:
1. granting her motion for class certification:
"of all California based, Host non-exempt employees (the
"Associates") who received a wage payment for services
performed after January 30, 2019, and a subclass of those
whose services for the company have been terminated after
that date.;
2. appointing her as class representative;
3. appointikng Harris & Ruble as class counsel; and
4. directing the parties to meet and confer with respect to
the form of notice With bifurcation of discovery and trial
on liability and damage issues.
Host International provides catering services to travelers. The
Company offers prepared meals, food and beverage, and merchandise.
A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July
23, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3yxYDgU at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan Harris, Esq.
Priya Mohan, Esq.
HARRIS & RUBLE
655 N. Central Ave., 17th Floor
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (323) 962-3777
Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
pmohan@harrisandruble.com
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court OKs Parties' Class Cert. Briefing Schedule
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA SHORT, OLIVIA
PARKER, ELIZABETH SNIDER, JENNIFER DIPARDO, ANTHONY DIPARDO, SEANE
RONFELDT, JAMES TWIGGER, GABRIELLE ALEXANDER, TAVISH CARDUFF, BRIAN
FRAZIER, CHAD PERRY, WILLIAM PRESSLEY, JEANETT SMITH, AND JANELL
WIGHT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, KIA MOTORS
AMERICA, INC., and KIA MOTORS CORPORATION, Case No.
2:19-cv-00318-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. James L. Robart granting
the parties' alterations to the class certification briefing
schedule as follows:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
-- Class certification August 30, 2021 October 1, 2021
motion
-- Response to class October 7, 2021 Nov. 12, 2021
certification motion
-- Reply to response to Nov. 4, 2021 Dec. 10, 2021
class certification
motion
Hyundai Motor is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hyundai Motor
Company. Along with Hyundai's USA manufacturing plant in
Montgomery, Alabama called Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama,
Hyundai has total of 19 manufacturing plants globally.
A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiff's motion to certify class
dated July 23, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3iksKDd at no extra charge.[CC]
IFM INVESTORS: Chief Blames 'Aggressive' Worker Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
David Marin-Guzman at afr.com reports that the head of industry
super fund-owned IFM Investors has blamed an aggressive and
unfounded class action for the asset manager's decision to fold a
major field services contractor, leaving dozens of employees owed
millions of dollars.
IFM chief executive David Neal told a parliamentary inquiry that
IFM fund directors placed services contractor Tandem into
administration in June because the stigma attached to a $400
million sham contracting law suit caused it to lose work and
funds.
Major powerline and and maintenance businesses GenusPlus announced
earlier in the day it had purchased the assets of Tandem Group,
once valued at more than $250 million, for $3.4 million and it
would take on its 120 remaining staff and 1000 contractors.
The sale is a pittance for a business that The Australian Financial
Review understands IFM had paid tens of millions of dollars for a
50 per cent stake in 2016, and which was slated at one stage for an
IPO valued at more than $250 million.
Asked how much of fund members' money was lost in the company, Mr
Neal told the House Standing Committee on Economics "it will be a
significant amount".
"This is a very unfortunate outcome. It's not something we would
like to see."
The CEO ripped into class action law firm Shine Lawyers for what he
said was its "aggressive" legal action, which had backing from the
Victorian Communications Workers Union.
The action filed in 2019 alleged Tandem engaged up to 4000 field
service contractors like employees but without conditions like
minimum wages, annual leave or superannuation.
"The great frustration here is we think the primary cause of this
business ending up in this situation is a largely speculative class
action that has no foundation," Mr Neal said.
He said the action, while never proceeding to trial, had been "very
detrimental" and "made it hard" to secure new contracts and
funding.
"Despite Shine being alerted to the fact that their action was
likely to cause the company to go into significant distress they
didn't withdraw their action.
"In June the directors of the company felt like they had no choice
but to put the company into the administration and that's their
legal responsibility if they can't meet the liabilities as they
fall due."
He defended Tandem's operations, saying it had paid the contractors
a total of $1.4 billion and they would have only been entitled to
$800 million under the award as employees.
At its peak, Tandem had annual turnover of $600 million but that
was whittled down to $75 million immediately before administration,
GenusPlus' statement said.
An administrator's meeting of creditors this month revealed the
company owed some $17 million to National Australia Bank.
However, Shine Lawyers practice leader Vicky Antzoulatos said Mr
Neal's comments were "offensive to the technicians, every day
Australians, that put their trust in this company which ultimately
failed them".
"Class actions of this magnitude are not commenced without
extensive due diligence and confidence about the prospects of
success," she said.
"If the company and IFM considered that the class action had no
prospects, they would have seen it through to the trial in October
rather than putting it into administration three months out from a
trial after spending significant costs defending the action with
two law firms, an accountancy firm and five barristers."
Mr Neal said once the news broke in The Australian Financial Review
that the company had gone into administration, several of its
industry fund members, which are half run by unions, were "quite
rightly" concerned.
"It's fair to say a number of our stakeholders were concerned and
many others were concerned to understand what was going on," he
said.
But he said the IFM directors had been working "extremely hard
right up until the early hours of this morning" to secure the best
outcome for the workers.
The sale does not fund the estimated $3 million that is owing to 86
employees sacked in the move to administration.
GenusPlus has stressed it is not purchasing the Tandem entity that
is subject of the class action, meaning it will not be liable for
the underpayments alleged in that case. [GN]
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Kaleida Health Joins Monopoly Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Drury, writing for Bizjournals.com, reports that Kaleida
Health has joined 4,000 hospitals and physician groups in a
class-action lawsuit against the maker of the da Vinci robotic
surgical system.
Kaleida is leading the suit filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on July 8 against Intuitive
Surgical, alleging a monopoly position that forces hospitals to buy
pricey maintenance contracts and replacement parts at inflated
prices despite the availability of lower-priced options.
Michael Hughes, Kaleida senior vice president and chief
administrative officer, said the allegations relate to a period of
time since 2017. [GN]
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: NY Health System Joins Class-Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Condon at beckersspine.com reports that Buffalo, N.Y.-based
Kaleida Health is the latest organization to join a class-action
lawsuit that accuses Intuitive Surgical of antitrust behavior and a
monopoly position related to its da Vinci surgical robot, Buffalo
Business First reports.
A group of 4,000 hospitals and physician groups allege that the
devicemaker forces hospitals to purchase expensive maintenance
contracts and replacement parts at inflated prices, despite the
availability of lower-priced options, according to court documents
filed July 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.
The da Vinci robot, Intuitive Surgical's flagship system, is
designed for a range of specialties including urology, gynecology
and general surgery.
The lawsuit alleges that most of the devicemaker's $4 billion in
annual revenue comes from instruments, accessories and service
contracts needed to keep the robots operating, according to the
report.
Intuitive Surgical is accused of using its robotic surgery market
dominance to "restrict competition" in the after-market for
services and parts, according to court documents.
The lawsuit is seeking undetermined damages. [GN]
JAMES GEORGE: Nash Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliatory Discharge
----------------------------------------------------------------
SELENA NASH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JAMES GEORGE; JG WINSLOW HOLDINGS, INC.; ME
DOWNTOWN INC.; ME EAGAN INC.; ME HIGHLAND INC.; ME ROCHESTER INC.;
ME ROGERS INC.; ME SAVAGE INC.; ME TONKA INC.; ME TONKA II INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 27-CV-21-9136 (Minn. Dist. Ct., July 27, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the
Minnesota Payment of Wages Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and
Class members for all hours worked and terminating the Plaintiff's
employment after her wage theft claims.
Ms. Nash worked for the Defendants as an esthetician at its Savage
and Eden Prairie locations from December 2020 through June 2021.
JG Winslow Holdings, Inc. is part of the James George Massage Envy
enterprise that provides therapeutic massage and skin care services
in Minnesota.
ME Downtown Inc. is part of the James George Massage Envy
enterprise that provides therapeutic massage and skin care services
in Minnesota.
ME Eagan Inc. is part of the James George Massage Envy enterprise
that provides therapeutic massage and skin care services in
Minnesota.
ME Highland Inc. is part of the James George Massage Envy
enterprise that provides therapeutic massage and skin care services
in Minnesota.
ME Rochester Inc. is part of the James George Massage Envy
enterprise that provides therapeutic massage and skin care services
in Minnesota.
ME Rogers Inc. is part of the James George Massage Envy enterprise
that provides therapeutic massage and skin care services in
Minnesota.
ME Savage Inc. is part of the James George Massage Envy enterprise
that provides therapeutic massage and skin care services in
Minnesota.
ME Tonka Inc. is part of the James George Massage Envy enterprise
that provides therapeutic massage and skin care services in
Minnesota.
ME Tonka II Inc. is part of the James George Massage Envy
enterprise that provides therapeutic massage and skin care services
in Minnesota. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel Kramer, Esq.
Joshua A. Newville, Esq.
MADIA LAW LLC
323 Washington Avenue N., #200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 349-2720
Facsimile: (612) 235-3357
E-mail: sjkramer@madialaw.com
JOHN HANCOCK: Romano ERISA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC ROMANO, et al,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.A.), Case No.
1:19-cv-21147-JG (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order certifying a class of:
"All trustees of all defined-contribution employee benefit
plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 with which Hancock had group annuity contracts and
recordkeeping agreements at any time from March 25, 2013 the
date of class certification, and that have, since March 25,
2013, allocated assets through Hancock's Signature Platform
to International Investment Options that have passed through
foreign tax credits to Hancock."
This case centers on Hancock's disloyal, undisclosed retention of
foreign tax credits generated by retirement assets entrusted to it
by the Plans. Under standardized form contracts, the Plans placed
retirement assets in Hancock's "Separate Accounts" for investment
in various mutual funds. Some of these mutual funds held foreign
securities and incurred foreign taxes. Hancock did not actually pay
these foreign taxes; rather, the Plans effectively did, as the
value of their investments fell by the amount of taxes paid.
Nonetheless, Hancock received and retained the benefit of the
dollar-for-dollar foreign tax credits that the payment of these
taxes generated.
Hancock, however, did not disclose this compensation to the Plans,
contrary to federal law. Nor did it use such compensation to offset
the fees that it charged the Plans, contrary to the terms of its
standardized form contracts. This uniform conduct towards the Plans
enriched Hancock by more than and violated the strict fiduciary
obligations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA").
John Hancock is a Boston-based insurance company. Established April
21, 1862, it was named in honor of John Hancock, a prominent
patriot. In 2004, John Hancock was acquired by the Canadian life
insurance company Manulife Financial.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 23,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ijVFqP
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter Prieto, Esq.
John Gravante, Esq.
Matthew P. Weinshall, Esq.
Alissa Del Riego, Esq.
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
One S.E. Third Avenue, Suite 2300
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 358-2800
Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com
jgravante@podhurst.com
mweinshall@podhurst.com
adelriego@podhurst.com
- and -
Boris L. Zhadanovskiy, Esq.
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART &
SHIPLEY, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
Telephone: (561) 686-6300
Facsimile: (561) 383-9467
E-mail: bzhadanovskiy@searcylaw.com
apf@searcylaw.com
zhadanovskiyteam@searcylaw.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Imerys Seeks Judgments Over Breach of Contracts
------------------------------------------------------------------
IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., et al., Debtors, IMERYS TALC AMERICA,
INC. and IMERYS TALC VERMONT, INC., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., Defendants, Case No. 21-51006-LSS
(D. Del., July 27, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for breach of contract and declaratory judgments.
In this class action, the Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgments
regarding the Defendants' obligations under a series of contracts
in which they agreed to indemnify the Plaintiffs and their
affiliates and predecessors for all losses, liabilities, damages,
costs, and expenses in connection with product liability claims
arising out of the sale of talc or talc-containing products by the
Defendants or their affiliates, and damages for the Defendants'
breach of those same contracts. The Plaintiffs repeatedly demanded
that the Defendants indemnify them against these talc-based product
liability claims. Beginning in 2015 and continuing through 2018,
the Plaintiffs made several attempts in writing, in person, through
mediation, and by phone to obtain indemnification from the
Defendants. The Plaintiffs' requests were always rebuffed or
ignored. Throughout the Plaintiffs' bankruptcy, the Defendants have
continued to ignore their obligations and instead have pursued a
strategy of delay and avoidance, alleges the suit.
Imerys Talc America, Inc. is a producer of talcum products, with
its principal place of business in California.
Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc. is a talc producer based in Vermont.
Johnson & Johnson is a medical device company based in New
Brunswick, New Jersey.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., formerly known as Johnson &
Johnson Consumer Companies Inc., is a manufacturer of consumer
products based in New Jersey. [BN]
The Debtors are represented by:
Mark D. Collins, Esq.
Michael J. Merchant, Esq.
Marcos A. Ramos, Esq.
Amanda R. Steele, Esq.
RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
One Rodney Square
920 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 651-7700
Facsimile: (302) 651-7701
E-mail: collins@rlf.com
merchant@rlf.com
ramos@rlf.com
steele@rlf.com
- and –
Angela R. Elbert, Esq.
Jason A. Frye, Esq.
NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG LLP
Two North LaSalle Street, Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60602-3801
Telephone: (312) 269-5995
Facsimile: (312) 578-8396
E-mail: aelbert@nge.com
jfrye@nge.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Logan Product Liability Suit Goes to E.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SAMUEL D. LOGAN, individually and as
successor-in-interest for DECEDENT MARIE LOGAN; SAMUEL R. LOGAN &
JENNIFER LOGAN, in their individual capacities v. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. f/k/a Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Companies Inc.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1-100,
Case No. VCU-274061, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Tulare, to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California on July 27, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:21-at-00768 to the proceeding.
In this case, the Plaintiffs assert claims against the Defendants
for negligence, strict liability for failure to warn and design
defect, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty,
fraud, loss of consortium, wrongful death, and survival action.
Johnson & Johnson is a medical device company based in New
Brunswick, New Jersey.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., formerly known as Johnson &
Johnson Consumer Companies Inc., is a manufacturer of consumer
products based in New Jersey.
Imerys Talc America, Inc. is a producer of talcum products, with
its principal place of business in California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael F. Healy, Esq.
Emily M. Weissenberger, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
555 Mission Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 544-1900
Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
eweissenberger@shb.com
- and –
Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223
Telephone: (213) 430-3400
Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
JOT LABS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jot Labs LLC. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Jot Labs LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-04273 (E.D.N.Y., July 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Jot Labs -- https://jot.co/ -- developed a way to extract the best
of every coffee bean into a liquid 20x more concentrated than
traditional coffee.[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
KELLOGG SALES: Settles Mislabeled Cereals Class-Action for $13-M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brianna Smith at legalreader.com reports that earlier, Kellogg
Sales Co. announced a $13 million settlement agreement to be paid
to consumers who purchased cereals that were labeled 'heart
healthy' or 'lightly sweetened.' The class-action suit was filed
over allegations that the company "violated certain laws by
labeling three of its cereals with certain nutritious statements."
However, the plaintiffs allege the products included in the suit
"contained excessive amounts of sugar."
The nationwide class-action suit included "anyone in the U.S. who,
between Aug. 29, 2012, and May 1, 2020, purchased one of the Class
Products in the United States, for household use and not for
resale." According to the suit, the class products included in the
settlement are the following:
-- Kellogg's Original Raisin Bran and Kellogg's Raisin Bran Crunch
cereals in a package stating "heart healthy"
-- Kellogg's Smart Start Original Antioxidants cereal in a package
stating "heart-healthy" and/or "lightly sweetened"
-- Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats Bite Size (Original, Maple Brown
Sugar, Strawberry, or Blueberry varieties), Big Bites (Original
variety), Little Bites (Chocolate or Cinnamon Roll varieties), or
Touch of Fruit in the Middle (Mixed Berry and Raspberry varieties)
cereals in a package stating "lightly sweetened"
Despite the settlement, Kellogg's has denied all wrongdoing. Both
parties, Kellogg's, and the class members agreed to the settlement
to avoid the risks and costs that might come with prolonged
litigation.
How can consumers get a chunk of the settlement, though? Well,
according to the agreement, class members must submit a valid claim
and will "receive a payment based on the type and amount of Class
Products they purchased during the Class Period." It's important to
note, however, that claims are limited to "two boxes per month of
Raisin Bran and Frosted Mini-Wheats, and one box per month of Smart
Start unless the Class Member submits proof of purchase," according
to the agreement. However, there is "no limit for claims that
include proof of purchase."
Proof of purchase may include showing a receipt, purchase order,
invoice, or other types of documentation proving the product was
purchased. For the average consumer, they can expect to receive
about $16.09, though that total will vary depending on how many
claims they file.
On top of the monetary settlement, Kellogg's agreed to "certain
injunctive relief related to the claims the company makes on the
Class Products' labels." A final hearing to approve the settlement
will take place on November 18, 2021, and the deadline to object or
opt-out of the settlement is September 7, 2021. Additionally, the
deadline to submit claim forms is September 7, 2021. [GN]
KENDALL CREDIT: Hernandez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kendall Credit and
Business Service, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Hernandez,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Kendall Credit and Business Service, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-22790-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Kendall Credit and Business Service Inc is a company that works
with various businesses to provide collection services and recover
debt.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander James Adducci Taylor, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (331) 307-7646
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com
KING COUNTY: Counsel Files Notice of Appearance in Jackson Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit styled as CEDRIC JACKSON,
MARYANNE ATKINS, TORRY LOVE, TRISTAN PASCUA, and PATRICK TABLES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KING
COUNTY, Case No. 2:21-cv-00995, Alison S. Bilow, Esq., filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington a
notice of appearance as counsel for the Plaintiffs on July 26,
2021.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of
prisoners' civil rights.
King County is a municipal corporation in Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alison S. Bilow, Esq.
COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 464-0838
Facsimile: (206) 382-3386
E-mail: alison.bilow@columbialegal.org
KONINKELIJKE PHILIPS: Osman Sues Over Health Risks of CPAP Devices
------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL OSMAN and ELLEN OSMAN, on behalf of themselves and 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-11199-DJC (D. Mass., July 26, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraud by omission, unjust enrichment, and unfair
and deceptive practices under Massachusetts General Laws and
Florida Statute.
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 alleged 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.
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 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:
Kimberly A. Dougherty, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW COLLABORATIVE, LLC
19 Belmont Street
South Easton, MA 02375
Telephone: (508) 230-2700
Facsimile: (385) 278-0287
- and –
David S. Stellings, Esq.
Gabriel Panek, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1436
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
- and –
Michael E. Criden, Esq.
Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515
South Miami, FL 33143
Telephone: (305) 357-9000
Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
- and –
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
MILLER LAW
950 West University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 843-0775
Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
KONINKLIJKE PHILLIPS: Baughman Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koninklijke Philips
N.V., et al. The case is styled as Julius Baughman, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Koninklijke Philips
N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips RS North America LLC, Case
No. 2:21-cv-01017-MRH (W.D. Pa., July 30, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. -- https://www.philips.com/global -- is a
Dutch multinational conglomerate corporation that was founded in
Eindhoven.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arnold Levin, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 592-1500
Fax: (215) 592-4663
Email: alevin@lfsblaw.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILLIPS: Farmer Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koninklijke Philips
N.V. et al. The case is styled as Diana M. Farmer, individually on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Koninklijke
Philips N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips RS North America
LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-00428 (S.D.W. Va., July 30, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. -- https://www.philips.com/global -- is a
Dutch multinational conglomerate corporation that was founded in
Eindhoven.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Majestro, Esq.
POWELL & MAJESTRO
405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: (304) 346-2889
Fax: (304) 346-2895
Email: amajestro@powellmajestro.com
- and -
Harry G. Deitzler, Esq.
James C. Peterson, Esq.
HILL PETERSON CARPER BEE & DEITZLER
500 Tracy Way
Charleston, WV 25311-1555
Phone: (304) 345-5667
Fax: (304) 345-1519
Email: hgdeitzler@hpcbd.com
jcpeterson@hpcbd.com
KROGER COMPANY: August 20 Extension for Class Cert. Reply Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMY KIBLER, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE KROGER COMPANY,
an Ohio corporation; DILLON COMPANIES, LLC d/b/a KING SOOPERS/CITY
MARKET, a Kansas limited liability company, Case No.
1:21-cv-00509-PAB-KMT (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting a three-week extension of time, up to and
including August 20, 2021, to file her Reply in Support of
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification.
The Plaintiff's Reply is currently due on July 30, 2021. This
extension is being sought to facilitate continuing discussions
between counsel concerning the scope of the collective such that
resolution may moot the pending conditional certification motions
practice.
The Kroger Company, or simply Kroger, is an American retail company
founded by Bernard Kroger in 1883 in Cincinnati, Ohio. It is the
United States' largest supermarket by revenue, and the
second-largest general retailer. Kroger is the seventh largest
American-owned private employer in the United States.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 23, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ijViwx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew E. Swan, Esq.
Paul F. Lewis, Esq.
LEVENTHAL | LEWIS
KUHN TAYLOR SWAN PC
620 North Tejon Street, Suite 101
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Telephone: (719) 694-3000
E-mail: plewis@ll.law
aswan@ll.law
LIN'S GARDEN: Hong Bid for Conditional Collective Status Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YINGCAI HONG v. LIN'S
GARDEN RESTAURANT, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02633-VSB
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered an order
directing the Clerk of Court to terminate Plaintiff's motion for
conditional collective certification.
Judge Broderick says that the Plaintiff has not informed him of any
reason why Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective
certification is not moot, he decided to terminate it.
On July 16, 2021, Judge Broderick approved the parties' stipulation
regarding conditional collective certification. On July 23, 2021,
he also approved the parties' joint proposed notice of pendency and
consent to sue form.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fqbTwV at no extra charge.[CC]
LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces Class Action Over RV Parking Restrictions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that parking restrictions imposed by
the city of Los Angeles violate the civil rights of people who live
in recreational vehicles because they have no other place to live,
according to a class-action lawsuit filed in federal court.
The Los Angeles Times reports the lawsuit filed on July 26 seeks $1
million in punitive damages each against Mayor Eric Garcetti, City
Council members and other city officials, but does not ask for
monetary compensation.
The class is represented by a woman identified as C. Finley who
lives in a recreational vehicle in Venice, according to the Times.
Relief for the class -- the thousands of people alleged in the
filing to live in recreational vehicles -- would be the removal of
signs being posted to prohibit overnight parking.
A spokesman for Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer told the
newspaper the office would review the complaint and would not
comment further.
Among other allegations, the lawsuit claims the parking
restrictions violate the rights of homeless people under the 8th
and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution by imposing penalties
for "merely being on, including sitting, sleeping, lying, or
parking vehicles on public property for homeless individuals who
cannot obtain permanent shelter." [GN]
LOS ANGELES, CA: Hunt Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRYAN HUNT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV23052, 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 27, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-06059 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, and unfair business practices.
City of Los Angeles is a municipality in California.
County of Los Angeles is a public entity in California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Geoffrey S. Sheldon, Esq.
Elizabeth T. Arce, Esq.
Jeffery E. Stockley, Esq.
LIEBERY CASSIDY WHITMORE
6033 West Century Boulevard, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Telephone: (310) 981-2000
Facsimile: (310) 337-0837
E-mail: gsheldonglcwlegal.com
earce@lcwlegal.com
jstockley@lcwlegal.com
MARLETTE FUNDING: Henry UTPCPL Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RONALD HENRY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MARLETTE FUNDING, LLC d/b/a BEST EGG,
Case No. GD-21-007229, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas
of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania on July 26, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00985-JFC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
(UTPCPL) by charging interest in excess of the 6 percent interest
rate cap imposed by the Pennsylvania Loan Interest and Protection
Law (LIPL) on non-banks who are not licensed under the Pennsylvania
Consumer Discount Company Act (CDCA).
Marlette Funding, LLC, doing business as Best Egg, is a financial
institution located in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Justin J. Kontul, Esq.
Alex G. Mahfood, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 288-3131
Facsimile: (412) 288-3063
E-mail: jkontul@reedsmith.com
amahfood@reedsmith.com
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Pension Trust Appeals Case Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION TRUST FOR SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in In RE:
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION,
Case No. 8:19-md-02879-PWG, in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland at Greenbelt.
The case is a derivative action filed by John P. Moore on behalf of
Marriott International, Inc. related to a data breach of the
Marriott-owned Starwood Hotels and Resorts, Inc. It is part of the
Multidistrict Litigation concerning the data breach. Plaintiff
brings claims against sixteen of Marriott's corporate officers and
directors for violations of the federal securities laws and for
corporate mismanagement under the laws of Delaware.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 22, 2021, the
Plaintiffs asked the Court to enter an order certifying the
proposed classes under Rule 23(b)(3), Rule 23(b)(2), and Rule
23(c)(4) and appointing their co-lead class counsel.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Negligence Classes, Consumer
Protection Classes, and Breach of Contract Classes should be
certified under Rule 23(b)(3) for statutory, nominal, inherent
value, and benefit of the bargain damages. For each, common issues
predominate over individual issues and a class action is superior
to any other method of adjudicating the issues. Moreover, the
identity of each Class members is ascertainable and nomanageability
hurdles prevent the trial of these Classes.
The Negligence Classes, Consumer Protection Classes, and Breach of
Contract Classes should be certified under Rule 23(c)(4) with
respect to liability issues and any individualized damages such as
identify theft or out of pocket losses can be resolved through
individual mini-trials or other management tools.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated June
11, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the case with
prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as Construction Laborers Pension
Trust Southern California v. Marriott International Incorporated,
Case No. 21-1802, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit, filed on July 26, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION TRUST FOR
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA is represented by:
William A. Accordino, Jr., Esq.
Alec Tibor Coquin, Esq.
Mark S. Goldman, Esq.
Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
Francis P. McConville, Esq.
Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW, LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005-1108
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
E-mail: acoquin@labaton.com
fmcconville@labaton.com
cvillegas@labaton.com
Defendants-Appellees MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, ARNE
SORENSON, KATHLEEN KELLY OBERG, BAO GIANG VAL BAUDUIN, BRUCE
HOFFMEISTER, STEPHANIE C. LINNARTZ, MARY K. BUSH, FREDERICK A.
HENDERSON, LAWRENCE W. KELLNER, AYLWIN B. LEWIS, and GEORGE MUNOZ
are represented by:
Jason J. Mendro, Esq.
Laura O'Boyle, Esq.
Jeffrey Saul Rosenberg, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036-5306
Telephone: (202) 887-3726
E-mail: jmendro@gibsondunn.com
loboyle@gibsondunn.com
jsrosenberg@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Adam Offenhartz, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-0000
Telephone: (212) 351-3808
E-mail: aoffenhartz@gibsondunn.com
MARY KAY COSMETICS: Garrett Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Marvalace Garrett, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Mary Kay Cosmetics, Inc., Case No.
2021-CH-3124 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on July 29, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-04029 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.
Mary Kay Inc. -- https://www.marykay.com/ -- is an American
privately owned multi-level marketing company.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Mark Steven Mester, Esq.
Renatta Ann Gorski, Esq.
Robert Collins, III, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (312) 876-7700
Email: mark.mester@lw.com
Renatta.Gorski@lw.com
robert.collins@lw.com
MDL 2879: 5 Plaintiffs in Marriott Data Breach Suit Must Show Docs
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC. CUSTOMER DATA
SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, MDL No. 19-MD-2879 (D. Md.), Judge John
M. Facciola of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland, Southern Division, recommends that Plaintiffs Marks,
Gononian, Lawrence, Guzikowski, and O'Brien be required to produce
the documents reflecting the time spent monitoring their financial
accounts for Jan. 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021.
The Plaintiffs demand to be compensated for their time and effort
in monitoring their bank, credit card, and other accounts. They
have to detect whether someone had used their "personally
identifiable information" to make unauthorized purchases by
exploiting documents revealed by the breach. The Plaintiffs have
also done this monitoring to prove (if necessary) that they
mitigated their damages.
Marriott has used discovery to gather the information that it will
use to challenge these claims. It wanted to equip itself with the
information that, for example, will show that the Plaintiffs cannot
possibly have spent the time they will claim they did in monitoring
their accounts.
Marriott's interrogatory number 7 asked the Plaintiffs to provide
details about this claim. Interrogatory number 8 asked them to
identify the actions they took in mitigating damages caused by the
breach. Marriott also propounded a Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 demand for
the documents the Plaintiffs claimed to have reviewed when they
monitored their accounts. Thus, in its Request for Production of
Documents number 16, Marriott demanded "all documents reflecting
the attempt to mitigate damages or documents reviewed during any
time spent monitoring financial accounts."
The Plaintiffs respond that they have produced documents reflecting
their mitigation efforts in response to these demands and gave
their best estimate of their time using different methodologies.
They pointed out that Marriott had issued subpoenas under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 45(a) to the issuing credit card companies or banks for
documents pertaining to their accounts. As the Plaintiffs see it,
Marriott has had an abundant opportunity during depositions to
inquire about documents produced and methodologies used by the
Plaintiffs to give their best estimates of time.
The parties differ radically in their articulation of the burden
that the Plaintiffs will have to endure to comply with Request for
Production number 16.
Judge Facciola holds that had discovery not ended, and had enough
time, unraveling all of this to find the truth might make sense.
The parties could do another round of depositions or
interrogatories to determine what each of the Plaintiffs still had
in their possession. In the Judge's view, however, there is
another solution that will resolve this controversy.
Judge Facciola recommends that Judge Grimm orders the five
Plaintiffs named Marks, Gononian, Lawrence, Guzikowski, and O'Brien
to produce the documents reflecting the time spent monitoring their
financial accounts for Jan. 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021. The
discovery he is recommending is proportionate. Attempting to
ascertain why these five Plaintiffs spent so much more time
monitoring their accounts than the others is relevant to their
claim for damages. All communications and transmission of
information or documents pertinent to this Recommendation by the
parties or their counsel, whether to another party, the counsel, or
the Judge, will be encrypted before transmittal.
Finally, Judge Facciola appreciates that paragraph 11(b) of the SPO
requires a party making any redactions of PPI to provide a log of
these redactions. The parties then must confer on whether the
redactions will impair the Requesting Party's ability to search for
relevant information and "if so, whether reasonable technical means
exist to permit search without compromising the protections set
forth therein."
The Judge anticipates that the Plaintiffs intend to make
redactions, which will trigger this requirement. He expects the
parties to have those discussions as soon as Marriott learns of the
redactions the Plaintiffs intend. He expresses his willingness to
be a party to those discussions if counsel believes that would be
helpful. He is anxious to get the matter resolved. If these
discussions are fruitless, the counsel should advise the Judge, and
he will decide what to do.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2021 Recommendation is
available at https://tinyurl.com/58tbxtw8 from Leagle.com.
MID-FLORIDA HOUSING: Friend Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
---------------------------------------------------------------
LAURIE FRIEND, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MID-FLORIDA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 6:21-cv-01207 (M.D. Fla., July 26, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act including failure to pay overtime, failure to pay
minimum wages, and retaliatory discharge.
Ms. Friend worked as a non-exempted transitional housing monitor
employee at 336 S. Palmetto Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida from
January 21, 2021 to June 28, 2021.
Mid-Florida Housing Partnership, Inc. is a non-profit organization
dedicated to providing first-time homebuyers ownership education
classes, located in Volusia County, 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
MOCHI ICE CREAM: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Mochi Ice Cream
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. The Mochi
Ice Cream Company, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-06498 (S.D.N.Y., July 30,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Mochi Ice Cream Company -- https://www.mymochi.com/ -- is the
domestic market's largest producer of this Japanese specialty
frozen desser.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
MUCHOS TACOS: Faces Torres Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
MARICELA JACKELYN TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MUCHOS TACOS CORP. D/B/A LOS TACOS
and MARIO MORAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04211 (E.D.N.Y., July
27, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law
including failure to pay overtime, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to provide accurate wage notice, and failure to provide
accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook, waitress,
and cleaner at Los Tacos in New York from October 1998 until
December 2020.
Muchos Tacos Corp., doing business as Los Tacos, is a restaurant
owner and operator located at 485 Maple Avenue Westbury, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
MULTIPLAN INC: Joint Status Report in Unified Life Suit Due Sept. 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, UNIFIED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and ALLIED NATIONAL,
INC., Third-Party Plaintiffs v. MULTIPLAN, INC., Third-Party
Defendants, Case No. CV 17-50-BLG-SPW-TJC (D. Mont.), Magistrate
Judge Timothy J. Cavan of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Montana, Billings Division, ordered the parties to the third
party case to provide a Joint Status Report by Sept. 3, 2021.
The parties have submitted a Joint Status Report indicating the
class action settlement in the main case is currently proceeding
toward possible final resolution, and therefore, they request
additional time to address the scheduling and disposition of the
third party case.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y839jkfk from Leagle.com.
MYLAN NV: Kansas Court Tosses EpiPen Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Patty Tascarella, writing for Pittsburgh Business Times, reports
that Viatris Inc. on July 27 announced that a class action lawsuit
filed almost four years ago against predecessor company Mylan NV
regarding the pricing and marketing of emergency allergy medication
EpiPen has been dismissed by a Kansas court.
Viatris (NASDAQ: VTRS) said in a release that the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas granted Mylan's motion to dismiss
in a lawsuit brought against it and Pfizer Inc. by KPH Healthcare
Services Inc. on behalf of an asserted class of direct purchasers
of EpiPen products. The court said KPH lacked the legal standing to
assert the claims in its lawsuit and dismissed the case in its
entirety -- with an option for KPH to file a limited amended
complaint within 30 days.
Viatris said in the release that it is pleased with the decision
and that it will continue to "defend itself vigorously should there
be any further proceedings in the case."
In June, the Kansas court ruled in part in favor of Mylan and in
part in favor of the class action plaintiffs in the summary
judgement.
Viatris was formed last November through the merger of Mylan and
Pfizer's Upjohn division. The deal was originally announced in July
2019. Viatris' management team is based in Canonsburg. It also has
global centers in Shanghai and in Hyderabad, India.
Mylan's original manufacturing plant in Morgantown, West Virginia,
which opened in 1965, is closing, with production ending on July
30; operations will wind down by March 31, 2022, and the process
will lay off 1,431 employees.
Viatris is closing more than a dozen facilities worldwide. [GN]
MYLIFE.COM: Finlay Seeks to Vacate Prior Class Cert. Sched. Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRION FINLAY, and all
others similarly situated, v. MYLIFE.COM, INC., Case No.
0:20-cv-01105-SRN-DTS (D. Minn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order to vacate the Court's second amended scheduling
order, or, alternatively, in light of the requested extension of
the fact discovery deadline, extending the time for the parties to
complete the addition of parties and the motion for class
certification by 60 days, up through and including September 30,
2021, and modifying additional dates in the Court's second amended
scheduling order.
MyLife is an American information brokerage firm founded by Jeffrey
Tinsley in 2002 as Reunion.com. In addition to that name, it
previously conducted business as Wink.com.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion Court's order dated July 23, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fqfr2d at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Madgett, Esq.
MADGETT & KLEIN PLLC
333 South 7 th Street, Suite 2450
Minneapolis, MN 55402
E-mail: dmadgett@madgettlaw.com
NANO FOUNDATION: Seeks Sanction After Plaintiff Dropped Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
cointelegraph.com reports that an ongoing lawsuit involving crypto
project Nano has taken another turn when the developers sought a
sanction after the plaintiff dropped the case.
The Nano team is after $701,000 in attorney fees and costs as a
sanction after a token buyer dropped his proposed class action. On
Tuesday, its legal team told a California federal court that some
of the claims against them had been "legally baseless," according
to Law360.
Token buyer Alec Otto had accused the Nano developers of fraud,
violating securities laws and other offenses in connection with the
loss of millions of tokens following the BitGrail exchange hack in
2018.
The developers stated that Otto's class action claims were filed
too late, at least one filing contained allegations unsupported by
evidence and that he advanced a series of "absurd and/or clearly
legally meritless arguments," adding:
"Mr. Otto's deposition testimony revealed that he has no idea how
many XRB he purchased, when he purchased them, or how many were
left on BitGrail when it closed."
There have been a number of lawsuits targeting Nano going back
three years when it was known as RaiBlocks. On February 8, 2018, 15
million XRB - the former native token of the Nano network - were
stolen from the Italian cryptocurrency exchange BitGrail.
Shortly after the $150 million hack, BitGrail's owner and operator,
Francesco Firano, asked Nano to alter its blockchain to cover the
losses.
The Nano core development team then accused BitGrail of being
insolvent and negligent in managing funds which had resulted in the
incursion.
The plot thickened when Firano pointed the finger at Nano, blaming
an issue with its protocol and timestamp technology.
Related: Strange Twists And Turns Of Nano And BitGrail Since The
$150 Mln Hack
Neither party took full responsibility, consequently, a number of
individual tokenholders including Alex Brola have tried to sue Nano
for their losses since. Brola's case was dismissed by a New York
district judge in October 2018.
Otto first tried to certify his suit as a class action in August
2020, then again in December, before deciding to withdraw it last
month. United States District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers approved
the voluntary dismissal but requested a briefing on whether Otto
and his counsel should face sanctions.
Nano developers have asked that Otto and all three law firms
representing him be held jointly responsible for their hefty $700K
legal costs. Otto and his counsel has yet to file a response at the
time of writing. [GN]
NATIONAL CREDIT: Court Denies Bid to Amend Portnoy Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALYSSA PORTNOY, et al., Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL CREDIT
SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-834 (S.D.
Ohio), Judge Michael R. Barrett of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Western Division:
(i) denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motions to Amend
the Complaint, for an Order Prohibiting NCS from
Transferring Business Assets, and for Sanctions;
(ii) dismissed as moot NCS' Motion for Protective Order;
(iii) granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for a 30-Day Continuance
to Disclose Expert Witnesses and Report; and
(iv) denied NCS' request for an award of attorney's fees.
The matter is before the Court on the Motion to Amend the
Complaint, Motion for an Order Prohibiting Defendant National
Credit Systems, Inc. ("NCS") from Transferring Business Assets,
Motion for Sanctions, and Motion for a 30-Day Continuance to
Disclose Expert Witnesses and Reports, each filed by Plaintiffs
Alyssa Portnoy and Darlene Portnoy. The matter is also before the
Court on NCS' Motion for Protective Order.
Analysis
I. Motion to Amend Complaint
The Plaintiffs seek to add four individual defendants, Boyd Gentry,
Katrina DeMarte, Steven Saltzman, and Shelle Weisbaum; an
additional corporate defendant, Resource Real Estate Opportunities
("RREO"); and two additional putative class action claims, fraud
and a second Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") claim.
The Plaintiffs allege that, when they tried to pay the Judgment in
this matter--that they owe to former-Defendant Williamsburg of
Cincinnati for unpaid rent--the proposed defendants knowingly and
inaccurately informed the Plaintiffs' counsel that RREO had the
legal authority to collect the Judgment on Williamsburg's behalf,
and directed the Plaintiffs' counsel to pay the Judgment to RREO,
when RREO has no such authority. The Defendants' principal
argument in opposition is that amendment would be futile.
Judge Barrett holds that the Plaintiffs' proposed fraud claim is
futile and amendment to add this claim is improper. The proposed
amended complaint does not allege that the Plaintiffs relied on the
proposed additional defendants' alleged statements regarding RREO's
legal authority to collect the Plaintiffs' Williamsburg Judgment.
The proposed amended complaint also does not contain an allegation
that the Plaintiffs paid RREO the amount of the Williamsburg
Judgment. Absent any alleged reliance on an alleged representation
by the proposed additional defendants made to the Plaintiffs, the
Judge finds that the Plaintiffs proposed fraud claim would not
survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs' proposed second FDCPA
claim is futile and amendment to add this claim is improper. He
says although the proposed amended complaint alleges that "the
Defendants collecting the alleged debts are 'debt collectors' with
then meaning of 15 U.S.C.A. Section 1692(a)(6),"the proposed
amended complaint does not include any allegation or supporting
facts indicating that the proposed additional defendants regularly
collect debt, collect debt as a matter of course for their clients,
collect debts as a substantial, but not principal part of his or
her legal practice, or are engaged in consumer-debt-collection
activity. The Plaintiffs proposed additional FDCPA claim would not
survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss because it does not state
a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Further, the
Court is "not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as
a factual allegation."
II. Motion for an Order Prohibiting NCS from Transferring Business
Assets
The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order prohibiting NCS from
transferring any and all of its business assets during the pendency
of the lawsuit. They ssert only that, "because NCS is facing a
class action lawsuit, there is a genuine concern that NCS will
transfer its business assets to another entity to avoid having its
business assets seized to pay a potential judgment."
The Plaintiffs do not provide evidence to support this alleged
concern, and Judge Barrett will not grant the expansive requested
relief based entirely on their unsworn and unsubstantiated concern.
Additionally, he says the only legal authority the Plaintiffs cite
for support is "Ohio Revised Code Section 1336 et al." The
Plaintiffs do not provide any analysis regarding why or how those
provisions of the Ohio Revised Code apply to the matter. The Court
will not manufacture such arguments on the Plaintiffs' behalf. The
Judge denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order Prohibiting NCS
from Transferring Business Assets.
III. Motion for Sanctions
The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order for sanctions against
NCS and its counsel. They argue that NCS and its counsel continue
to withhold certain information -- namely contact information for a
representative of Williamsburg and collection letters that NCS sent
to Williamsburg's former tenants in 2016 and 2017 -- that the Court
ordered NCS to produce at a March 23, 2021 telephone discovery
dispute conference.
Based on parties' representations to the Court at the four
subsequent discovery dispute conferences, Judge Barrett finds both
that NCS is working, albeit slowly, to provide the information that
the Court ordered NCS to produce on March 23, 2021, and that the
parties are working, albeit in a needlessly contentious manner, to
complete discovery relevant to the appropriateness of the proposed
class in this putative class action matter. He finds that the
Plaintiffs are not entitled to sanctions based on NCS' actions
related to the March 23, 2021 Court-ordered discovery at this time.
He denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Judge Barrett denied the Plaintiffs'
Motions to Amend the Complaint, for an Order Prohibiting NCS from
Transferring Business Assets, and for Sanctions without prejudice.
He dismissed NCS' Motion for Protective Order as moot in light of
the parties' representations to the Court at the July 9, 2021
discovery conference, i.e., that they will to submit an agreed
protective order. The Judge granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for a
30-Day Continuance to Disclose Expert Witnesses and Reports, and
the Court will discuss the calendar in the matter with the parties
at the next telephone status conference which it will schedule
shortly. Finally, NCS' request for an award of attorney's fees is
denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2db6suv4 from Leagle.com.
NESTLE PURINA: Salinas Sues Over Forklift Operators' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMMANUEL SALINAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY and NESTLE
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-at-00767 (E.D. Cal., July 26,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code including failure to pay for all hours worked,
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to authorize and permit and/or make available meal and rest
periods, failure to provide timely and accurate itemized wage
statements, and unlawful business practices.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a forklift operator in
Maricopa, California since in February 2015.
Nestle Purina Petcare Company is a producer of pet food, treats,
and cat litters, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.
Nestle USA, Inc. is a food and beverage company, headquartered in
Arlington, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Ori Edelstain, Esq.
Philippe M. Gaudard, 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
oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
pgaudard@schneiderwallace.com
NOBLE ENERGY: Tenth Circuit Flips Denial of Phelps' Bid to Remand
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHELPS OIL & GAS, LLC, on behalf of itself and a class
of similarly situated royalty owners, Plaintiff-Appellant v. NOBLE
ENERGY INC.; DCP MIDSTREAM, LP, Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
19-1376 (10th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit reverses the district court's denial of the Plaintiff's
motion to remand and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Phelps brought a class action in Colorado state court against Noble
and DCP for underpayments on oil and gas royalties Noble allegedly
owes Phelps and other owners of royalty interests. Noble owns and
holds interests in certain oil and gas leases in Colorado. From
these leases, Noble produces natural gas, associated natural gas
liquids (NGLs), and condensed liquid hydrocarbons.
Before the gas can be marketed, it must be processed to remove
impurities and separate liquid hydrocarbons from natural gas steam.
For processing, Noble sells its natural gas to DCP for these
post-wellhead services. First, Noble delivers its natural gas to
DCP's processing plant. After processing, DCP sells the gas and
retains a share of the sale proceeds as compensation for its
services before paying the rest of the balance to Noble. The terms
of DCP and Noble's compensation relationship are set out under what
they call percentage or proceeds (POP) agreements.
In 2003, certain recipients of gas-well royalties from Noble's
leases filed a class action lawsuit in Colorado state court against
Noble, claiming Noble was underpaying royalties (Holman suit).
Phelps, a business that for many years received royalties from
Noble, was a member of this plaintiff class.
Four years later, the Holman suit was settled. The settlement
agreement included what the parties called a "Future Royalty
Calculation Method," which became effective on Jan. 1, 2008. Under
this methodology, Noble agreed to pay the Holman suit class members
royalties on 100% of cash payments received by Noble from natural
gas sales and NGLs and on 50% of the cash proceeds retained by a
provider of post-wellhead services like DCP.
The settlement also required Noble to pay royalties on 50% of the
value of any volumes of natural gas and NGLs retained by
post-wellhead service providers, used up during production, or
otherwise lost and unaccounted for. In the lawsuit, Phelps
contends Noble has failed to comply with the terms of the Holman
Settlement and has underpaid its royalty payments to class
members.
In 2008, Noble commissioned an audit of DCP. After Noble drafted a
report identifying several potential instances of underpayment, DCP
objected to the findings and disputed the amount of the alleged
underpayment, $34 million. Over a period of nine months, Noble and
DCP continued to negotiate the audit report findings. Noble
modified some of its claims based on new information provided by
DCP.
In March 2010, Noble and DCP entered into a settlement agreement
(DCP Settlement). In the DCP Settlement, Noble and DCP modified
the terms of their contracts to increase the revenue Noble would
receive from DCP going forward. DCP also agreed to commit $17.5
million towards improving its own gas processing and transportation
infrastructure for the primary benefit of Noble. These
improvements would increase DCP's capacity to process and transport
natural gas from Noble's wells. Although Noble did not receive any
direct payments from the settlement, it estimated the net present
value of the contract modifications to be approximately $44
million. All royalty owners, including Phelps, were paid increased
royalties under the renegotiated DCP compensation contracts as a
result.
In August 2014, Phelps filed its class action in state court in
Colorado, asserting two claims against Noble based on the DCP
Settlement: (1) Noble breached the Holman Settlement by not paying
royalties on claims identified in the DCP audit where DCP underpaid
Noble; and (2) Noble breached the implied duty of good faith and
fair dealing by settling with DCP rather than recovering a higher
amount in underpayments.
Shortly after the case was filed, DCP removed it to federal court.
Phelps asked the district court to remand to state court, arguing
DCP had not satisfied the amount-in-controversy requirement for
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). The
district court denied the motion to remand, stating that DCP's cost
of compliance with Phelps's declaratory judgment claim would exceed
$75,000. Phelps then sought a mandamus from this court, but the
petition was denied.
During discovery, the district court bifurcated the issues of
liability and class certification. The parties then moved for
summary judgment on liability. The district court granted summary
judgment for Noble and DCP, except for one breach of contract
claim. For the breach of contract claim, the district court found
two prerequisites to Noble's obligation to pay royalties under the
Holman Settlement: (1) production of natural gas and/or NGLs from
the relevant wells; and (2) return of sales proceeds for that gas
from DCP. Because the second prerequisite required that Noble
receive actual payments from DCP, the court rejected Phelps's
claims for royalties based on the amount that Noble allegedly
should have received from underpayments claimed in the DCP audit.
The court also rejected Phelps' claim for royalties based on the
value of the gas retained by DCP through sale proceeds, under the
50% royalty obligation. But the court found that Phelps may be
entitled to a royalty payment from Noble based on DCP's promise to
invest $17.5 million in infrastructure -- so long as the promise
provided any value to Noble beyond increased production that would
already benefit Phelps through royalty payments.
For the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claim, the
court found that Phelps lacked any evidence that Noble exercised
its discretion under the Holman Settlement in bad faith.
The court allowed further discovery on Phelps' one remaining
breach-of-contract claim regarding DCP's $17.5 million
infrastructure investment. In September 2019, the district court
entered final judgment and dismissed the remaining claim, finding
that Phelps had failed to show Noble received any benefit from the
infrastructure investment separate from increased production and
revenues.
Phelps argues that the district court's denial of its motion to
remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was incorrect. It
contends the maximum cost of compliance for DCP on its individual
claim would be limited to the amount of money DCP would be required
to pay Noble to satisfy its individual claim for royalty
underpayments, an amount less than $1,000. DCP, in contrast,
argues that a declaratory judgment in Phelps' favor could result in
DCP being liable for the entire amount in the contracts between DCP
and Noble, which could amount to millions of dollars.
The Tenth Circuit agrees with Phelps and dismisses for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. It concludes that the district court
erred in denying Phelps' motion to remand, and it thus dismisses
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Applying the "either
viewpoint" rule, neither the value to Phelps nor the cost to either
defendant in the case would result in more than $75,000 at
controversy. Though the contracts between Noble and DCP are worth
millions of dollars, the Tenth Circuit cannot base federal
jurisdiction on potential future litigation involving the
defendants.
In sum, the Tenth Circuit concludes that it is legally certain that
the jurisdictional facts do not establish a sufficient amount in
controversy to qualify for federal subject-matter jurisdiction
under Section 1332(a). Accordingly, it reverses the district
court's denial of Phelps' motion to remand and dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction. Because it lacks jurisdiction, the Tenth Circuit
does not reach the merits of Phelps' remaining claims.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/veyzekmb from Leagle.com.
George A. Barton -- george@bartonburrows.com -- (Stacy A. Burrows
-- stacy@bartonburrows.com -- with him on the briefs), Law Offices
of George A. Barton, P.C., in Overland Park, Kansas, for
Appellant.
Shannon Wells Stevenson -- shannon.stevenson@dgslaw.com --
(Jonathan W. Rauchway -- Jon.Rauchway@dgslaw.com -- and James R.
Henderson -- james.henderson@dgslaw.com -- with him on the brief)
Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLC, in Denver, Colorado, for Appellee Nobel
Energy Inc.
Daniel M. McClure -- dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com --
(Matthew A. Dekovich -- matt.dekovich@nortonrosefulbright.com --
with him on the brief), Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, in Houston,
Texas, for Appellee DCP Midstream LP.
OATLY GROUP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 24 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on July 27 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Oatly Group AB ("Oatly" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: OTLY) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Oatly securities between May 20,
2021 and July 15, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors have until September 24, 2021 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
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.
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.
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.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Oatly 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]
OATLY GROUP: Faces Jochims Suit Over 8.8% Drop of ADS Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
KAI JOCHIMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OATLY GROUP AB, TONI PETERSSON, CHRISTIAN
HANKE, FREDRIK BERG, STEVEN CHU, ANN CHUNG, BERNARD HOURS, HANNAH
JONES, MATTIAS KLINTEMAR, PO SING (TOMAKIN) LAI, ERIC MELLOUL,
BJORN OSTE, FRANCES RATHKE, YAWEN WU, and TIM ZHANG, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-06360 (S.D.N.Y., July 26, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants filed materially false
and misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) in order to trade Oatly's American Depositary
Shares (ADSs) at artificially inflated prices between May 20, 2021
and July 15, 2021. Specifically, the Defendants allegedly failed to
disclose to investors the truth about the company's financial
metrics, sustainability, and growth in China.
When the truth emerged about the company's improper accounting
practices and greenwashing, the price of Oatly ADSs fell 8.8% over
two trading days, falling from its close price of $21.13 on July
13, 2021, to a close price of $19.48 on July 14, 2021, on unusually
high trading volume, damaging investors, the suit asserts.
Oatly Group AB is an oatmilk company headquartered in Sweden. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
Rhiana L. Swartz, 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
rswartz@scott-scott.com
OATLY GROUP: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Sept. 24 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on July 28 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired
Oatly Group AB ("Oatly" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OTLY) American
Depository Shares ("ADSs") during the period between May 20, 2021
and July 15, 2021 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
September 24, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.
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.
On July 14, 2021, short seller Spruce Point Capital Management
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 declined by $0.59 per
ADS, or approximately 2.8%, from $21.13 per ADS to close at $20.54
per ADS on July 14, 2021.
The lawsuit 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.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Oatly ADSs, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.
Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
212-371-6600
https://www.kmllp.com
investigations@kmllp.com [GN]
OATLY GROUP: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Oatly Group AB ("Oatly" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OTLY)
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-06485, is on behalf of all purchasers of
American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of Oatly between May 20, 2021
and July 15, 2021 (the "Class Period"), against Oatly and certain
of its officers and/or directors, for violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act" or "Exchange Act") and
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Oatly
securities during the Class Period, you have until September 24,
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.
Oatly describes itself as the world's original and largest oatmilk
company. It is organized under the laws of Sweden.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made
material misrepresentations concerning the following: Oatly (a)
overinflated its gross margins, revenue, capital expenditure, and
market share financial metrics; (b) overstated its sustainability
practices and impact; (c) exaggerated its growth 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.
Oatly held its initial public offering ("IPO") in the United States
on or around May 20, 2021, offering and selling 84,376,000 American
Depositary Shares (including 19,688,000 from certain shareholders)
at a price of $17 per share. Each ADS represents one Oatly ordinary
share. The IPO raised $1.4 billion for the Company.
Two months later, on July 14, 2021, before the markets opened,
short seller Spruce Point Capital Management ("Spruce Point")
issued a report entitled, "Sour on an Oat-lier Investment" (the
"Spruce Point Report" or the "Report"). The Report brought to light
a number of improprieties at Oatly, including improper accounting
practices and greenwashing (making the Company's product appear
more sustainable than it actually is), among other issues.
Over the next days, a number of media outlets reported on the
Spruce Point Report and its allegations about Oatly.
As this news hit the market, the price of Oatly ADSs fell 7.8% over
two trading days, falling from its close price of $21.13 on July
13, 2021, to a close price of $19.48 on July 14, 2021, on unusually
high trading volume.
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 [GN]
OATLY GROUP: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 24 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 27 disclosed that
purchasers of Oatly Group AB (NASDAQ: OTLY) American Depository
Shares ("ADSs") between May 20, 2021 and July 15, 2021, inclusive
("Class Period") have until September 24, 2021 to seek appointment
as lead plaintiff in the Oatly class action lawsuit. The Oatly
class action lawsuit charges Oatly and certain of its top
executives and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. The Oatly class action lawsuit was commenced on July
26, 2021 in the Southern District of New York and is captioned
Jochims v. Oatly Group AB, No. 21-cv-06360.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Oatly 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 Oatly class action lawsuit must be filed with the
court no later than September 24, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Oatly class action lawsuit alleges that,
throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Oatly overinflated its
gross margins, revenue, capital expenditure, and market share
financial metrics; (ii) Oatly overstated its sustainability
practices and impact; (iii) Oatly exaggerated its growth in China;
and (iv) as a result, Oatly's statements about its operations,
business, and prospects were misleading during the Class Period.
On July 14, 2021, short seller Spruce Point Capital Management
issued a report entitled, "Sour on an Oat-lier Investment."
According to the Oatly class action lawsuit, Spruce Point brought
to light a number of improprieties at Oatly, including improper
accounting practices and greenwashing (making Oatly's product
appear more sustainable than it actually is), among other issues.
Over the next days, a number of media outlets reported on the
Spruce Point report and its allegations about Oatly. On this news,
the price of Oatly ADSs fell nearly 9% over two trading days,
damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Oatly ADSs
during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in
the Oatly 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 Oatly class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Oatly class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Oatly 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]
OATLY GROUP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of September 24 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Oatly Group AB
("Oatly" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: OTLY) 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 May 20,
2021 and July 15, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 24, 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. Oatly overinflated its gross margins,
capital expenditure financial metrics, and revenues. The Company
exaggerated the proprietary nature of both its product formulas and
manufacturing processes. The Company overstated its success in
China. 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 Oatly, 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]
OCUGEN INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 17 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on July 27 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced in the on behalf of investors who
purchased Ocugen, Inc. ("Ocugen") (NASDAQ: OCGN) between February
2, 2021 and June 10, 2021.
If you suffered a loss, contact us at the link below. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/ocugen-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18011&wire=5
Allegations against OCGN include that the Company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) the information submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") was insufficient to support an Emergency Use
Authorization ("EUA"), (ii) Ocugen would not file an EUA with the
FDA, (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements, as well as Defendants' statements about Ocugen's
business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you suffered a loss in Ocugen you have until August 17, 2021 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
OHIO NATIONAL: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Veritas Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VERITAS INDEPENDENT PARTNERS LLC, et al., Plaintiffs
v. THE OHIO NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-769 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Douglas R. Cole of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division,
denied Ohio National Financial Services, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings.
Ohio National is an insurance company that issues various
insurance-related products. Among those products are individual
variable annuities, including the kind at issue here -- Guaranteed
Minimum Income Benefits ("GMIB") Contracts. As the name suggests,
these annuities provide a guaranteed income to the purchaser
regardless of the performance of the underlying investment. That
may be a good deal for the purchaser, but at some point, Ohio
National allegedly concluded that these annuities weren't so good
(i.e., profitable) for Ohio National. So, according to Veritas,
Ohio National devised a scheme to exit as many of these annuities
as it could.
The scheme allegedly went as follows: Ohio National terminated its
selling agreements with broker-dealers -- like Veritas -- who were
responsible for selling the annuities to individual investors. Ohio
National then claimed that this termination meant it no longer
needed to pay trail commissions on those annuities to the
broker-dealers, and Ohio National told the broker dealers as much
in letters it sent them. According to Veritas, Ohio National's
decision to terminate the selling agreements and to cease paying
trail commissions was meant to pressure broker-dealers to encourage
their clients to relinquish their GMIB Contracts, thereby,
alleviating the ongoing losses these GMIB Contracts allegedly were
causing Ohio National.
None of this sat well with Veritas. It responded by filing the
class-action lawsuit on behalf of itself and similarly situated
broker-dealers. In so doing, Veritas became one of the many
broker-dealers who have enmeshed Ohio National in federal
litigation across the country over its decision to stop paying
trail commissions on certain annuities, e.g., Ohio Nat'l Life Ins.
Co. v. Cetera Advisor Networks, LLC, No. 1:19-cv-47, 2021 WL
2819838 (S.D. Ohio July 7, 2021); Next Fin. Grp. v. Ohio Nat'l Life
Ins. Co., No. 4:18-cv-4652, 2019 WL 4739508 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 30,
2019); Commonwealth Equity Servs., LLC v. Ohio Nat'l Life Ins. Co.,
No. 18-cv-12314-DJC, 2019 WL 1470131 (D. Mass. Apr. 3, 2019).
As in some of those other cases, Ohio National in the case has
already attempted to persuade the Court that the contract
unambiguously relieves Ohio National of any obligation to continue
paying trail commissions when the selling agreement is no longer in
force. And, as the courts in those other cases held, this Court
decided (while the case was assigned to a different judge) that the
selling agreement here does not unambiguously support Ohio
National's position. The Court, therefore, denied Ohio National's
Motion for Summary Judgment.
The issue now before the Court is different. One (and only one) of
the Defendants -- Ohio Financial -- moves for (partial) judgment on
the pleadings with respect to Count III of Veritas's First Amended
Class Action Complaint. That Count asserts a
tortious-interference-with-contract claim under Ohio law against
Ohio Financial. Veritas alleges that Ohio Financial "induced or
otherwise purposely caused the other Ohio National Defendants to
breach their obligations under the Selling Agreement to Plaintiff
and the Class."
Ohio Financial is the parent company of the other Ohio National
Defendant companies. The latter are thus Ohio Financial's
subsidiaries. That is important because, according to Ohio
Financial, binding Sixth Circuit precedent (interpreting Ohio law)
prohibits a claim of tortious interference based on a parent's
alleged interference with a subsidiary's contract, citing Canderm
Pharm., Ltd. v. Elder Pharm., Inc., 862 F.2d 597 (6th Cir. 1988).
Veritas, for its part, points to an Ohio Court of Appeals decision,
Paramount Farms International, L.L.C. v. Ventilex, B.V., 61 N.E.3d
702 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). According to Veritas, the Paramount Farms
decision means that Canderm no longer binds this Court because
"Ohio law has measurably changed" in the 30-plus years since the
Sixth Circuit decided Canderm.
Sorting out this disagreement is the task before the Court. At the
center of this dispute is the Sixth Circuit's decision in Canderm
and whether later Ohio case law has displaced it as the law that
controls the case.
Judge Cole treats Canderm the same way that the parties (and other
district courts) have treated it: As holding that, under Ohio law,
a parent company has an absolute privilege to interfere with a
subsidiary's contract. The question then becomes whether the Court
must follow that holding (assuming it is a holding) given that no
subsequent Sixth Circuit en-banc or United States Supreme Court
decisions have overruled Canderm.
Ohio Financial argues that the Court must follow Canderm for two
reasons. Reason number one: Canderm is a published Sixth Circuit
decision constituting that court's Erie prediction of how the Ohio
Supreme Court would decide the issue. Reason number two: No
intervening Ohio Supreme Court decision speaks directly to the
issue. According to Ohio Financial, under the Sixth Circuit's
decision in Rutherford v. Columbia Gas, 575 F.3d 616 (6th Cir.
2009), the combination of these two points requires the Court to
follow Canderm. It argues that because no intervening Ohio Supreme
Court decision has "resolved" whether a parent can ever be liable
for tortiously interfering with a subsidiary's contract, Canderm
controls.
The problem with Ohio Financial's reading of Rutherford, however,
is that it is incomplete, Judge Cole opines. He says, in holding
that it was bound by a prior published Sixth Circuit decision, the
Rutherford court did not merely point to the lack of any
"intervening decision of the state's highest court that has
resolved the issue." Instead, earlier in the decision, the
Rutherford court used a slightly different formulation, stating
that "a 'panel cannot' reconsider a prior published case that
interpreted state law, 'absent an indication by the state courts
that they would have decided the prior case differently.'" And in
applying those principles to the case before it, the Rutherford
Court noted that Ohio law had not "measurably changed in the
meantime," "as no Ohio court had reached a contrary holding" or
"had suggested" that the prior published Sixth Circuit decision had
"misapplied Ohio law."
Thus, the Court, like those courts, would need to consider all of
the Section 767 factors in determining whether Ohio Financial
improperly interfered with the other Ohio National Defendants'
contracts -- factors that Ohio Financial has ignored in its Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings.
For these reasons, Judge Cole denied Ohio Financial's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2pyy62j6 from Leagle.com.
OHIO SECURITY: E.D. Wisconsin Dismisses Biltrite Insurance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BILTRITE FURNITURE, INC., Plaintiff v. OHIO SECURITY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 20-CV-656-JPS-JPS (E.D.
Wis.), Judge Joseph Peter Stadtmueller of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted the Defendant's
motion for judgment on the pleadings, and dismissed the case with
prejudice.
On April 24, 2020, Plaintiff Biltrite Furniture, a furniture
retailer, filed a class action complaint alleging breach of
contract and anticipatory breach of contract, and seeking
declaratory judgment against insurer Ohio Security Insurance. The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to carry out its
"contractual obligation under common all-risk commercial property
insurance policies to indemnify Plaintiff" for lost business income
arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, it brings claims
for coverage under three provisions of the insurance policy: (1)
the Business Income coverage provision; (2) the Extra Expenses
coverage provision; and (3) the Civil Authority coverage
provision.
In December 2019, a highly infectious and potentially deadly virus,
later identified as SARS-CoV-2 began circulating the globe. By
March 2020, COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic. To curb the
number of infections -- and to ensure adequate resources for those
who did become sick -- governments restricted travel, gathering,
and general daily activities.
In Wisconsin, these restrictions took the form of a series of
Emergency Orders, which attempted to respond to the rapidly
changing public health crisis. On March 24, 2020, Governor Tony
Evers issued a "Safer at Home Order," which required individuals to
"stay at home or their place of residence" with certain exceptions,
none of which were applicable to Plaintiff, a furniture retailer.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff shut down its store for an indeterminate
amount of time in order to comply with the rule.
Shortly after shutting down, the Plaintiff filed a business
interruption claim under its all-risk insurance policy for lost
profits. On April 5, 2020, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff
that its claim had been denied because (1) the Plaintiff "had not
suffered direct physical loss or damage for purposes of" its
Business Income and Extra Expense coverage, and (2) "no surrounding
property had suffered direct physical loss or damage for purposes
of the Civil Authority coverage." The Plaintiff's claim was also
purportedly excluded because it fell under the "Virus and Bacteria"
exclusion, which precludes coverage for closures resulting from a
contagious bacteria and virus.
The Plaintiff disputes the denial of the claim, and filed suit on
behalf of itself and other policyholders who were denied coverage
for losses incurred due to closures required by the COVID-19
pandemic. Specifically, it is suing on behalf of a nationwide
class and Wisconsin sub-class of those who have "entered into
standard all-risk commercial property insurance policies with
Liberty Mutual where such policies provide for business income loss
and extra expense coverage and do not exclude coverage for
pandemics and who have suffered losses due to measures put in place
by civil authorities' stay-at-home or shelter-in-place orders since
March 15, 2020."
On Sept. 9, 2020, the Defendant filed an answer to the complaint.
On Nov. 16, 2020, the Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings based on several grounds. First, there was no "direct
physical loss of or damage to covered property" sufficient to
trigger the policy. Second, and relatedly, mere loss of use of the
premises does not fall within the Business Income and Extra Expense
provisions. Third, the Civil Authority coverage provision does not
apply to the Emergency Orders. Finally, the Defendant contends
that the Plaintiff's claims are barred by the policy's virus
exclusion.
The parties agree that Wisconsin law applies. Under Wisconsin law,
"insurance policies are construed as they would be understood by a
reasonable person in the position of the insured." Courts will
first "examine the facts of the insured's claim to determine
whether the policy's insuring agreement makes an initial grant of
coverage." If the policy covers the claim, courts "next examine
the various exclusions to see whether any of them preclude
coverage." If the exclusion is "uncertain," it will be "narrowly
or strictly construed against the insurer."
Judge Stadtmueller concludes that the COVID-19 pandemic was a
tragedy with many unfortunate consequences, which include business
losses. Though some insurance policies may cover those losses, not
all will. When a policy, read plainly, does not cover the loss or
the cause of loss, the Court simply cannot rewrite the policy to
provide coverage where none was due. Better recourse for these
losses might be found through Congress.
Accordingly, Judge Stadtmueller granted the Plaintiff's request to
name Ohio Security Insurance Co. as Defendant, and the Defendant
will be deemed a party to these proceeding. He also granted the
Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. He dismissed the
case with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter
judgment accordingly.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/hbcj6vs from Leagle.com.
ORPHAZYME A/S: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 13 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Orphazyme A/S (NASDAQ: ORPH) investors
that acquired shares between April 30, 2020 and July 7, 2021.
Investors have until September 13, 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 Orphazyme made misleading and
false statements to the market. Orphazyme's arimoclomol was not an
effective treatment for Inclusion Body Myositis ("IBM").
Additionally, Arimoclomol was not an effective treatment for
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ("ALS"). Orphazyme's new drug
application ("NDA") for arimoclomol for the treatment of
Niemann-Pick disease type C ("NPC") was incomplete and require∂
additional data to support its benefit-risk analysis. It was not
likely that The FDA would approve the Orphazyme's NDA for
arimoclomol. Orphazyme's public statements were false and
materially misleading throughout the class period, based on these
facts. Investors suffered damages when the market learned the truth
about Orphazyme.
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
13, 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]
ORPHAZYME A/S: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of September 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on July 27 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed against
Orphazyme A/S in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired the American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") of Orphazyme A/S
between September 29, 2020 and June 18, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
All investors who purchased the ADRs of Orphazyme A/S and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the ADRs of Orphazyme A/S, you may,
no later than September 7, 2021, request that the Court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the
ADRs of Orphazyme A/S.
On March 29, 2021, Orphazyme issued a press release "announc[ing]
its Phase 2/3 trial evaluating arimoclomol for the treatment of
[IBM] . . . did not meet its primary and secondary endpoints." On
this news Orphazyme's ADRs fell $3.59 per ADR, or 28.97%, to close
at $8.80 per ADR on March 29, 2021.
Subsequently on May 7, 2021, Orphazyme issued a press release
"announc[ing] topline data from pivotal trial of arimoclomol in
[ALS.]" The press release disclosed that the Company's "pivotal
trial…did not meet its primary and secondary endpoints to show
benefit in people living with ALS." On this news, Orphazyme's ADS
price fell $2.81 per ADR, or 32.83%, to close at $5.75 per ADR on
May 7, 2021.
Finally, on June 18, 2021, Orphazyme issued a press release
announcing receipt of a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the
FDA following the agency's review of the NDA for arimoclomol for
the treatment of NPC. The press release disclosed that the FDA had
rejected the arimoclomol NDA for NPC.
On this news, Orphazyme's ADS price fell $7.23 per ADR, or 49.66%,
to close at $7.33 per ADR on June 18, 2021.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774
URL: http://www.whafh.com[GN]
PAN DINER: Faces Maldonado Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
FABIAN MALDONADO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PAN DINER INC., NICHOLAS LENTZERES, and
PETER LENTZERES, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-04169 (E.D.N.Y., July
26, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law
including failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failure to pay spread-of-hours
compensation, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to
furnish accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at their restaurant in
New York from March 2014 to March 2020. He performed non-exempt
duties for the Defendants including preparing food, cooking,
washing dishes and cleaning the premises.
Pan Diner Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator in New York.
[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
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com
PARAMOUNT PROPERTY: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
-------------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVO A. PEREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PARAMOUNT PROPERTY MAINTENANCE LLC and
HUMBERTO CASTELAN, Defendants, Case No. 6:21-cv-01198 (M.D. Fla.,
July 26, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to pay
overtime, failure to pay minimum wages, and retaliatory discharge.
The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempted, full-time janitorial
employee in Florida from September 15, 2020 to June 01, 2021.
Paramount Property Maintenance LLC is a janitorial and maintenance
company, with a central office in Broward County, 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
PARTS AUTHORITY: Diligent Delivery Wins Dismissal Bid in Jaime Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Hugo Jaime, et al., Plaintiffs v. Parts Authority LLC,
et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-21-00015-PHX-SPL (D. Ariz.), Judge
Steven P. Logan of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona granted as modified Diligent Delivery System's Motion to
Dismiss or Transfer Venue in Whole or In Part.
The case arises from an alleged failure to pay overtime wages.
Plaintiffs Randall Gohn, Robert Davis Jr., Maurice Headd, Bryan
Bluder, Cynthia Cyprian, Kelly White, and Tyrone Young are all
delivery drivers. Young is a resident of New York. Gohn, Bluder,
Cyprian, and White are residents of Arizona. Davis is a resident
of New Jersey. Headd is a resident of Georgia.
Defendant Yaron Rosenthal had substantial decision-making authority
over Parts Authority Arizona LLC and Parts Authority Inc. ("Parts
Authority Defendants"). The Parts Authority Defendants own and
operate a chain of automobile parts stores in multiple states.
Defendants Northeast Logistics, Inc., Arizona Logistics, Inc., BBB
Logistics, Inc., and Michigan Logistics, Inc. are staffing agencies
that supply delivery drivers to the Parts Authority Defendants.
They do business as "Diligent Delivery Systems." Defendant Larry
Browne "exercised operational control" over the Diligent Delivery
business entities. Defendants Northeast Logistics, Inc., BBB
Logistics, Inc., and Michigan Logistics, Inc. are headquartered in
and have principal places of busines in Texas. Larry Browne lives
in Texas. Arizona Logistics, Inc. has its headquarters and
principal place of business in Arizona.
The Diligent Defendants allegedly hire delivery drivers to work for
the Parts Authority Defendants. The Defendants (the Amended
Complaint does not specify which Defendants) classify the delivery
drivers as "independent contractors." The Motion to Dismiss states
Plaintiff Davis signed a contract with Defendant Northeast
Logistics, Inc. and Plaintiff Gohn contracted with Defendant
Arizona Logistics, Inc. It is not clear from the Amended Complaint
with whom the other Plaintiffs contracted. Allegedly, the
contracts contained arbitration agreements. Each Plaintiff
allegedly was employed by the "Defendants," which presumably means
all the listed Defendants.
The Plaintiffs allege they were wrongfully classified as
independent contractors and that they were wrongly denied overtime
wages and reimbursement for the cost of driving their own vehicles
to deliver parts. They also allege the Defendants failed to
provide the New York delivery drivers with accurate wage
statements, a violation of New York state law. It is unclear from
the Amended Complaint which entity was responsible for payment of
the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs filed their Class Action Complaint on Jan. 5, 2021.
The Amended Class Action Complaint sets forth claims for (1)
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for failure to
pay overtime wages, (2) violation of the FLSA's minimum wage
requirement, (3) violation of the Arizona Employment Practices and
Working Conditions Law ("AEPWCL") for failure to pay the Arizona
minimum wage, (4) violation of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law
("NJWHL") for failure to pay overtime wages, (5) violation of the
NJWHL for failure to pay the New Jersey minimum wage, (6) violation
of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") for failure to pay overtime
wages, (7) violation of the NYLL for failure to pay the New York
minimum wage, (8) violation of the NYLL for failure to provide wage
statements, (9) violation of materially identical state overtime
laws, (10) violation of materially identical state minimum wage
laws by failure to pay minimum wage after deducting unreimbursed
vehicle expenses, and (11) a request for declaratory judgment.
Similar cases have been filed both in this District and others.
On Jan. 20, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Conditionally
Certify Collective Action, Order Disclosure of Putative Members'
Names and Contact Information, and to Facilitate Class Notice.
During February and March of 2021, the Defendants filed three
Motions to Dismiss. The Order addresses Document 15, filed
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) for improper venue and
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Document 15 is also a
motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). In the
same motion, Defendants Northeast Logistics, Inc., Michigan
Logistics, Inc., BBB Logistics, Inc., Parts Authority Arizona LLC,
and Parts Authority Inc. move to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2)
for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court denied the Motion to
Certify without prejudice, giving the Plaintiffs leave to refile
after its decision on the Motions to Dismiss.
Also in February 2021, Hugo Jaime, the only named plaintiff
asserting an FLSA claim in the first two complaints, accepted a
settlement offer from the Defendants. The Plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Leave to Amend Their Complaint on March 29, 2021,
seeking to preserve the FLSA claim by adding new Plaintiffs in
their Amended Class Action Complaint. The Defendants asserted the
Amended Class Action Complaint does not cure the defects of the
initial complaint. The Court allowed the Plaintiffs to amend their
First Amended Complaint and stated it would rule on the motions to
dismiss after the Second Amended Complaint was filed. The
Plaintiffs have since filed the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint and their response to the pending Motion to Dismiss.
Judge Logan now determines whether the Amended Complaint cures the
defects pointed out in the Motions to Dismiss, and whether it
should dismiss or transfer the case in whole or in part. He
concludes that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over
Defendants Northeast Logistics, Inc., Michigan Logistics, Inc., and
BBB Logistics Inc., but may exercise personal jurisdiction over the
Parts Authority Defendants. He finds that venue is proper in this
district, but the first-to-file rule applies to Plaintiffs Headd
and Cyprian. Finally, the Judge finds that the Amended Complaint
failed to cure the defects of the original, because it is a shotgun
pleading.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Logan granted Diligent Delivery
System's Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Venue in Whole or In Part is
granted as modified as follows:
I. Northeast Logistics, Inc., Michigan Logistics, Inc., and
BBB Logistics Inc. are dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction
under Rule 12(b)(2).
II. Plaintiffs Maurice Headd and Cynthia Cyprian, and Claims I
and II in their entirety will be transferred to the Southern
District of New York to join the similarly situated plaintiffs in
Henao v. Parts Authority LLC, et al., Case No. 19-10720. The Clerk
of Court will process the transfer upon docketing of the Order.
III. Claims III-X are dismissed without prejudice for failure
to state a claim under to Rule 12(b)(6).
The Judge denied as moot Defendant Yaron Rosenthal and Defendant
Larry Browne's Motions to Reconsider.
The Clerk of Court will enter judgment accordingly and terminate
the action.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2e8cnx7r from Leagle.com.
PENSACOLA STATE COLLEGE: Ehrhardt Suit Removed to N.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jennifer Ehrhardt, and others similarly situated
v. Pensacola State College, Case No. 2021-CA-001509 was removed
from the First Judicial Circuit in and for Escambia County to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on July
30, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00933-MCR-HTC to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Civil Rights: Americans with
Disabilities – Employment for the Civil Rights Act.
Pensacola State College, formerly Pensacola Junior College --
https://www.pensacolastate.edu/ -- is a public college in
Pensacola, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert E. Larkin, Esq.
Avery Dean McKnight, Esq.
ALLEN NORTON & BLUE PA - TALLAHASSEE FL
906 N. Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32303
Phone: (850) 561-3503
Fax: (850) 561-0332
Email: amcknight@anblaw.com
PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES: Walsh Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Sonia Walsh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. and Does
1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2021-00030716, (Cal.
Super., July 19, 2021), seeks to recover overtime compensation,
liquidated damages (or, alternatively, interest), and attorneys'
fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code.
Walsh was hired by Petco in September 2016 as a groomer apprentice.
During her tenure with Petco, she also worked as a "Guest
Experience Specialist." Throughout her employment with Petco, she
was properly classified as a nonexempt employee. As such, she was
entitled to be paid for every hour worked, overtime as appropriate
and was entitled to meal and rest periods as well as to meal/rest
period premiums at her regular rate of pay when the opportunity for
meal and rest periods was not provided. Walsh was also paid bonuses
for good customer service including "partner bonuses" that were
non-discretionary.
The complaint notes that throughout her employment, Petco failed to
properly compensate Walsh for all overtime hours worked and was
also frequently denied the opportunity to take off-duty, timely and
uninterrupted meal and rest periods. Her employment with Petco
ended on approximately December 31, 2019. At the time her
employment ended, Petco owed her outstanding earned wages including
underpaid overtime hours and underpaid meal period premiums. Those
wages remain outstanding, asserts the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
William J. Gorham, Esq.
Nicholas J. Scardigli, Esq.
Vladimir J. Kozina, Esq.
MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
Stockton, CA 95207-8253
Telephone: (209) 477-3833
Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
Email: rwasserman@mayallaw.com
wgorham@mayallaw.com
nscardigli@mayallaw.com
vjkozina@mayallaw.com
PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Martin Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Philips North America
LLC, et al. The case is styled as David L. Martin, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Philips North America
LLC, Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips RS North America LLC
formerly known as: Respironics, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-11239-DJC
(D. Mass., July 30, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
Philips Electronics North America Corporation --
http://www.usa.philips.com/-- produces and distributes electronic
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
Edward F. Haber, Esq.
SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
Two Seaport Lane, 6th Flr.
Boston, MA 02210
Phone: (617) 439-3939
Fax: (617) 439-0134
Email: astewart@shulaw.com
ehaber@shulaw.com
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of September 21 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Piedmont Lithium Inc.
("Piedmont" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PLL) and reminds investors
of the September 21, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead
plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed
against the Company.
If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in Piedmont
stock or options between March 16, 2018 and July 19, 2021 and would
like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner
Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310).
You may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/PLL.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.
As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
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.
Specifically, on July 20, 2021, before market hours, Reuters
published an article entitled "In push to supply Tesla, Piedmont
Lithium irks North Carolina neighbors" which, among other things,
reported various regulatory issues regarding the Company's
prospective mining operations in North Carolina.
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.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Piedmont's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.
Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner.
To view the source version of this press release, please visit
https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/91766 [GN]
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of September 21 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on July 27 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Piedmont Lithium Inc. f/k/a
Piedmont Lithium Limited ("Piedmont" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
PLL, PLLL) securities between March 16, 2018 and July 19, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Piedmont investors have until
September 21, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
On July 20, 2021, before market hours, Reuters reported that
Piedmont "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."
According to the article, a majority of the board of commissioners
said, "they may block or delay the project because Piedmont has not
told them what levels of dust, noise and vibrations will occur, nor
how water and air quality would be affected."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $12.56, or nearly 20%,
to close at $50.52 per share on July 20, 2021, thereby injuring
investors.
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) 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' statements
about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.
If you purchased Piedmont securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than September 21, 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 Piedmont 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]
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on July 28
disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York against Piedmont Lithium Inc. f/k/a Piedmont Lithium
Limited (NASDAQ: PLL) ("Piedmont") on behalf of those who purchased
or acquired Piedmont securities between March 16, 2018 and July 19,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Piedmont
securities during the Class Period may, no later than September 21,
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/piedmont-lithium-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=piedmont
Piedmont engages in the exploration and development of resource
projects. Piedmont primarily holds a 100% interest in a lithium
project covering 2,322 acres in the North Carolina. On May 17,
2021, in connection with Piedmont's redomiciliation from Australia
to the United States, Piedmont's American Depositary Share ("ADS")
holders received one share of Piedmont common stock for each ADS.
The Class Period commences on March 16, 2018, when Piedmont filed a
Registration Statement on a Form 20-F. On June 14, 2018, Piedmont
issued a press release entitled "PIEDMONT LITHIUM ANNOUNCES MAIDEN
MINERAL RESOURCE" which stated, in part, its "strategy of building
an integrated lithium processing business based on proven,
conventional technologies and benefitting from the inherent
advantages of Piedmont's strategic North Carolina location,
including; … [s]trong local government support." Throughout the
Class Period, Piedmont informed investors regarding its plan for
completing necessary permitting and zoning activities required to
commence mining and processing operations in North Carolina.
The truth began to emerge on July 20, 2021. Before market hours,
Reuters published an article entitled "In push to supply Tesla,
Piedmont Lithium irks North Carolina neighbors" which reported the
following, in pertinent part, regarding Piedmont's regulatory
issues in North Carolina: (1) Piedmont had 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; (2) five of the seven members of the
county's board of commissioners, who control zoning changes, said
they may block or delay the project; and (3) Piedmont had been set
to meet with commissioners in March, but canceled with three days'
notice, further straining the relationship.
Following 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, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Piedmont had 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 did not have "strong local government support";
and (5) as a result, the defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
Piedmont investors may, no later than September 21, 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]
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Piedmont Lithium class action lawsuit charges Piedmont Lithium
Inc. and certain of its top executives with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks to represent purchasers
of Piedmont Lithium publicly traded securities between March 16,
2018 and July 19, 2021, inclusive ("Class Period"). The Piedmont
Lithium class action lawsuit was commenced on July 23, 2021 in the
Eastern District of New York and is captioned Skeels v. Piedmont
Lithium Inc., No. 21-cv-04161.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Piedmont Lithium
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 Piedmont Lithium class action lawsuit
must be filed with the court no later than September 21, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Piedmont Lithium class action lawsuit alleges
that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Piedmont
Lithium has not, and would not, follow its stated steps or timeline
to secure all proper and necessary permits; (ii) Piedmont Lithium
failed to inform relevant people and governmental authorities of
its actual plans; (iii) Piedmont Lithium failed to file proper
applications with relevant governmental authorities (including
state and local authorities); (iv) Piedmont Lithium and its lithium
business does not have "strong local government support"; and (v)
as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times.
On July 20, 2021, Reuters published an article entitled "In push to
supply Tesla, Piedmont Lithium irks North Carolina neighbors" which
reported the following, among other things, regarding Piedmont
Lithium's regulatory issues in North Carolina: "The company,
however, 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.
Five 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 Lithium's stock price fell nearly
20%, damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Piedmont
Lithium securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the Piedmont Lithium 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 Piedmont
Lithium class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law
firm of its choice to litigate the Piedmont Lithium class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Piedmont Lithium class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
About Robbins Geller
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. [GN]
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Vincent Wong Reminds of September 21 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has commenced in the on behalf of investors who purchased
Piedmont Lithium Inc. ("Piedmont") (NASDAQ: PLL) between March 16,
2018 and July 19, 2021.
If you suffered a loss, contact us at the link below. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/piedmont-lithium-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18102&wire=5
Allegations against PLL include that the Company made materially
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.
If you suffered a loss in Piedmont you have until September 21,
2021 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
PIERMONT WEALTH: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Piermont Wealth
Management Inc. The case is styled as Arturo Stevez, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Piermont Wealth
Management Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-06471 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Piermont Wealth Management Inc. -- https://www.piermontwealth.com/
-- is an advisory company based in Melville, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
PREFERRED COLLECTION: Nieves Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Preferred Collection
& Management Services, Inc. The case is styled as Jacob R. Nieves,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Preferred Collection & Management Services, Inc., Case No.
8:21-cv-01837 (M.D. Fla., July 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Preferred Collection & Management Services, Inc. --
https://www.preferredcms.com/ -- provides financial services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander J. Taylor, Esq.
NATIONAL LITIGATION LAW GROUP, LLP
2401 Northwest 23rd Street, Suite 42
Oklahoma City, OK 73107
Phone: (630) 366-0140
Email: ataylor@nationlit.com
PRIME STAFFING: Nyanwleh Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Nurses
-------------------------------------------------------------
KAMAH NYANWLEH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRIME STAFFING LLC, CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW
YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, LINCOLN HOSPITAL
AUXILIARY, INC., JACOBI MEDICAL CENTER AUXILIARY INC., NEW
YORK-PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., and DOES NOS. 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06357 (S.D.N.Y., July 26, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to
provide wage notice, and failure to furnish accurate wage
statements.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a nurse from
April 2017 through January 27, 2020 and again from December 10,
2020 through the present.
Prime Staffing LLC is a healthcare professional recruitment
company, with its principal place of business located at 450
Seventh Avenue, 43rd Floor, New York, New York.
City of New York is a municipal corporation in New York.
New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation is an operator of
public hospitals and clinics in New York, New York.
Lincoln Hospital Auxiliary, Inc. is a healthcare company based in
Bronx, New York.
Jacobi Medical Center Auxiliary Inc. is an operator of a medical
center in Bronx, New York.
New York-Presbyterian Healthcare System, Inc. is an operator of a
medical center in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Innessa Melamed Huot, Esq.
Alex J. Hartzband, Esq.
Camilo M. Burr, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com
ahartzband@faruqilaw.com
cburr@faruqilaw.com
PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN: Tyk Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jacob Tyk, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Progressive Northern Insurance
Company, Case No. CJ-21-00015 was removed from the Delaware Circuit
Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana on July 29, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00754-J to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.
Progressive Northern Insurance Company --
https://www.progressivecommercial.com/ -- operates as an insurance
company. The Company provides commercial vehicles such as cars,
pickup trucks, vans, trailers, and SUV's, as well as property and
casualty insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jim D. Dowell, Esq.
JIM D. DOWELL PC
1807 Oklahoma Ave
Woodward, OK 73801
Phone: (580) 254-0081
Fax: (580) 254-0037
Email: jdowell@dowelllaw.net
- and -
Kenneth G. Cole, Esq.
Mark A. Engel, Esq.
Steven S. Mansell, Esq.
MANSELL ENGEL & COLE PC
204 N Robinson, 21st Flr.
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-7201
Phone: (405) 232-4100
Fax: (405) 232-4140
Email: kcole@meclaw.net
mengel@meclaw.net
smansell@meclaw.net
The Defendant is represented by:
Brad L. Roberson, Esq.
ROBERSON KOLKER COOPER & GOERES PC
16408 Muirfield Pl
Edmond, OK 73013
Phone: (405) 606-3333
Fax: (405) 606-3334
Email: brad@rkcglaw.com
QUICKEN LOANS: Limited 3rd Party Discovery in Carter Suit Allowed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DONNA CARTER, Plaintiff v. QUICKEN LOANS, LLC,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-cv-11898-IT (D. Mass.), Judge Indira
Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts grants Quicken Loans' Motion to Convert Portions of
its Motion to Dismiss into a Motion for Summary Judgment and grants
Carter limited third-party discovery under Rule 56(d).
Plaintiff Carter brought the action on behalf of herself and a
putative class against Quicken Loans in state court, alleging that
Quicken Loans called her to collect on her mortgage loan more
frequently than is permitted under Massachusetts regulations. She
alleges that she had a mortgage loan from Quicken Loans, a
residential mortgage servicer.
Ms. Carter claims that that Quicken Loans violated a Massachusetts
regulation that makes it an "unfair or deceptive act or practice
for a creditor" to "initiate a communication with any debtor via
telephone in excess of two such communications in each seven-day
period." The regulation applies only to communications made "in an
effort to collect a debt."
Quicken Loans removed the case to the Court and filed a Motion to
Dismiss on the grounds that (1) it made no collection calls to
Carter during the relevant time period and (2) the regulation is an
unconstitutional restraint on speech in violation of the First
Amendment. As to the first ground, Quicken Loans filed a Motion to
Convert Portions of its Motion to Dismiss into a Motion for Summary
Judgment at the court's direction.
In support of its motion to dismiss, Quicken Loans attached
transcripts of calls to Carter's phone number. At a scheduling
conference, the court notified the parties that it would "allow
limited discovery to the issue of whether, in fact, this is the
universe of communications" between Quicken Loans and Carter,
Telephonic Scheduling Conference Transcript 9, and instructed
Carter to "file a Rule 56(f) affidavit" if she needed discovery
beyond what Quicken Loans would voluntarily disclose.
Quicken Loans has now submitted a declaration explaining that
during the four years before she filed her complaint (Aug. 11, 2016
through Aug. 11, 2020), Carter had only one mortgage loan with
Quicken Loans. That loan was paid off on Dec. 17, 2018. The
declaration states that the attached a call log and transcripts
reflect "all outbound calls made on Quicken Loans' behalf" to
Carter's phone number during the relevant time period.
Quicken Loans also produced a further affidavit and transcript of
an incoming call (from Carter to Quicken Loans), during which
Carter spoke with a Quicken Loans team member (Alex Makled) about a
refinance opportunity and instructed him to call her back. The
incoming call took place earlier the same day as the earliest
outgoing call.
Ms. Carter opposed the motion and requested additional time for
discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). She asserts that the call
log and transcripts provided do not include all the calls she
received from Quicken Loans during the relevant time period. She
requests leave to conduct additional discovery under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(d). Specifically, she seeks to subpoena her telephone
provider for her own call records, and she requests that the court
order Quicken Loans to produce "the complete account history notes
related to the Plaintiff."
Discussion
Quicken Loans does not dispute that Carter's Rule 56(d) proffer was
timely. Judge Talwani addresses each remaining factor in turn.
A. Authoritativeness
Ms. Carter's Rule 56(d) proffer took the form of an affidavit from
her counsel, stating in part that the Plaintiff "has reviewed the
records the Defendant submits in support its motions for summary
judgment and disputes that they are complete." The counsel states
further that Carter "believes that the Defendant placed additional
calls demanding payment on her mortgage loan that are not reflected
in Defendant's records."
Judge Talwani finds that although "a Rule 56(f) proffer may
acceptably take the form of 'written representations of counsel,'"
where possible, it should come from "a person who possesses
firsthand knowledge and who is competent to address the specifics
of the matters discussed." When it comes to the content of alleged
phone calls between Carter and Quicken Loans and between Carter and
her telephone provider, the person with firsthand knowledge who
should be addressing the specifics of her review and recollections
is Carter, not her counsel.
B. Good Cause for the Failure to Have Discovered the Facts Sooner
Since there has been no discovery yet, this is Carter's first
opportunity to discover the relevant facts.
C. Plausible Basis for Believing that Specific Facts Probably
Exist
Ms. Carter says that her "account history notes" and records from
her phone provider will show that Quicken Loans' records of
outgoing calls made to Carter are incomplete. She bases this claim
on the argument that the transcript of the first call she received
from Quicken Loans suggests previous contact between Carter and the
caller, meaning that there must be calls missing from the records.
Carter's counsel asserts further that Carter believes there were
additional calls.
This vague assertion, according to Judge Talwani, is insufficient
to meet Carter's burden to provide the court with reason to believe
that Quicken Loans' records of outgoing calls are incomplete, or
that additional discovery from Quicken Loans will uncover evidence
of undisclosed collection calls. However, in the interest of
ensuring a just result, she accepts the counsel's assertion as
sufficiently plausible to the extent the discovery sought is
limited to Carter's own phone records.
D. How the Emergent Facts Will Influence the Outcome of the Pending
Motion
To the extent that the Plaintiff sought the "account history notes"
to determine the content of the calls, those facts would not
influence the outcome of the pending motion where the court has the
actual transcripts to review, Judge Talwani holds. The records
from Carter's phone service provider, however, could influence the
outcome of Quicken Loans' motion. If Carter's claim that she
received calls from Quicken Loans that were not disclosed in
Quicken Loans' call log is correct, the records from her phone
provider will bear it out.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Talwani grants Quicken Loans'
Motion to Convert Portions of its Motion to Dismiss into a Motion
for Summary Judgment and grants Carter limited third-party
discovery under Rule 56(d). Carter will be permitted to serve a
subpoena for her own phone records on her phone provider but will
not be permitted discovery of the Defendant's account history
notes. She will file any further opposition to Quicken Loans'
pending Motion to Dismiss (portions of which are now converted into
a motion for summary judgment) no later than Aug. 15, 2021. Any
such opposition that includes factual assertions by the Plaintiff
will include an affidavit from Carter herself, rather than from the
counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3m922rfw from Leagle.com.
REALTIME FANTASY: Fischler Sues Over Blind's Equal Website Access
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FISCHLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REALTIME FANTASY SPORTS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-04206 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.rtsports.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (a)
images do not have the requisite alternative text, (b) fieldset
elements are not labeled with legend elements, (c) documents do not
have a title and document titles are blank, (d) tables are not
properly labeled, (e) links use general text like more with no
surrounding text explaining the link purpose, (f) frames do not
have a title, (g) PDFs are not tagged and therefore are
inaccessible to screen reader users, (h) some pages have the same
title, (i) button elements are empty, (j) form controls have no
label, (k) forms have fields without label elements or title
attributes, (l) webpages have duplicate IDs which cause problems in
screen readers, (m) radio button groups are not contained in a
fieldset element and radio buttons are not properly labeled, (n)
webpages have no headings and at least 20 headings are empty, (o)
several links on a page share the same link text but go to
different destinations, (p) webpages have markup errors.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Realtime Fantasy Sports, Inc. is a company that offers online
fantasy sports services based in St. Peters, Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Telephone: (212) 392-4772
E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com
RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT: Nasta Files FDCPA Suit in W.D.N.C.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Receivables
Management Partners, LLC. The case is styled as Jody Nasta,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Receivables Management Partners, LLC doing business as rmp LLC,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00389-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C., July 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Receivables Management Partners, LLC --
https://www.receivemorermp.com/ -- provides accounts receivable
collection services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Randolph Emory, Esq.
THE EMORY LAW FIRM, P.C.
11020 David Taylor Drive, Suite 102
Charlotte, NC 28262
Phone: (704) 371-4333
Fax: (704) 371-3015
Email: emorylawecf@gmail.com
REKOR SYSTEMS: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 26 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Rekor Systems, Inc. f/k/a Novume Solutions, Inc.
("Rekor" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: REKR; NVMM) and certain of its
officers. The class action, filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division, and docketed
under 21-cv-01604, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Rekor securities between April 12, 2019 and May
25, 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 Rekor securities during the
Class Period, you have until August 30, 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.
Rekor, through its subsidiaries, provides vehicle identification
and management systems based on artificial intelligence in the
United States, Canada, and internationally.
One of the main drivers of Rekor's business is its automatic
license plate recognition ("ALPR") technology, which the Company
has pitched to investors as a major market opportunity since at
least 2018. For example, Rekor has consistently touted the
purportedly lucrative prospects of its uninsured vehicle
enforcement diversion ("UVED") partnership with the State of
Oklahoma ("Oklahoma"), under which the Company receives
compensation and commission fees in exchange for using its
technology to scan vehicle license plates and compare them against
a database to identify vehicles without auto-insurance. Fueled by
management commentary, Rekor's stock price has ballooned under the
market perception that the Oklahoma UVED partnership is not only
lucrative but the first stepping-stone to capturing similar deals
with other municipalities.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Rekor's ALPR technology and
UVED-related business is outclassed by global competitors with an
established, dominant market share; (ii) it was unlikely that
states would pass legislation authorizing deals similar to Rekor's
Oklahoma UVED partnership because of, inter alia, state and local
privacy laws and related public concerns; (iii) Rekor's UVED
partnership was not as profitable as Defendants had led investors
to believe because of known impediments to enrollment rates and
costs associated with the partnership; (iv) accordingly, Rekor had
overstated its potential revenues, profitability, and overall ALPR-
and UVED-related business prospects; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
On May 10, 2021, a bill authorizing the establishment of a state
UVED program was excluded from the Texas Legislature's Daily House
Calendar and left pending in a state committee. Because May 10,
2021 was the deadline for the Texas UVED bill to move from the
committee, news sources reported significant market speculation
that the bill was dead. Further, on a post-market earnings call
that same day to discuss Rekor's first quarter 2021 financial
results, Defendant Berman also indicated that Rekor may not secure
a UVED agreement with Texas.
On news of the Texas UVED bill's exclusion from the Texas
Legislature's Daily House Calendar, Rekor's stock price fell $5.20
per share, or 27.5%, to close at $13.71 per share on May 10, 2021.
Then, following Defendants' post-market conference call with
investors the same day, Rekor's stock price fell an additional
$2.45 per share, or 17.87%, to close at $11.26 per share on May 11,
2021—representing a two-day total decline of $7.65 per share, or
40.45%.
Then, on May 26, 2021, private investor Western Edge published a
report addressing Rekor, entitled "Rekor Systems: Lackluster Growth
Runway And Exaggerated Insurance Scheme Raise Substantial Downside
Risk." The Western Edge report alleged, among other things, that
global competition was "miles ahead" of Rekor in ALPR development
and market establishment; that the Company's "realized results
suggest management's potential revenue guidance could be overstated
by up to 80%"; and that investors were at risk of facing a "massive
downside if [the Company's] growth doesn't show up." The Western
Edge report also noted that Rekor's predecessor in the Oklahoma
UVED partnership had exited it because "the program is not
economically feasible" given costs associated with the program and
because "there was typically no consequences for individuals that
simply ignored the fines/insurance requirements after they were
identified."
Also on May 26, 2021, Mariner Research Group ("Mariner") published
a report addressing Rekor, entitled "REKR – Government documents
do not support investor expectations." The Mariner report
"highlight[ed] government documentation which shows that REKR's
revenue opportunities are likely a fraction of what investors
expect[.]" Among other things, Mariner alleged that "Oklahoma
government budgets imply that REKR's much-vaunted UVED program is a
sub $2MM revenue opportunity—almost 96% less than the >$40MM
in revenue intimated by Rekor's CEO." The Mariner report likewise
echoed the issues disclosed in the Western Edge report, including,
inter alia, those that had caused Rekor's predecessor in the
Oklahoma UVED partnership to exit the program.
Following the publication of the Western Edge and Mariner reports,
Rekor's stock price fell $0.44 per share, or 3.93%, to close at
$10.77 per share on May 26, 2021.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Garcia Suit Moved to E.D. Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JULIAN GARCIA, Plaintiff v. ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-06918-MMC (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the motion to transfer the
case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
The Motion to Transfer Venue was filed on Feb. 10, 2021, by
Defendants Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc. and Roadrunner
Transportation Systems, Inc.
In the instant action, Garcia, who "worked as a Delivery Driver for
Roadrunner from approximately 2004 or 2005 to May 2017," alleges
Roadrunner misclassified "the Delivery Drivers as `Independent
Contractors' rather than as 'employees.'" Based thereon, Garcia,
on May 12, 2020, filed his complaint in the Superior Court of
California, in and for the County of Alameda, asserting, on behalf
of himself and a putative class, two causes of action,
specifically, "Reimbursement of Business Expenses" and "Violations
of the Unfair Competition Law." On Oct. 5, 2020, Roadrunner,
citing the Class Action Fairness Act, removed the case to federal
court.
Before the Court is Roadrunner's "Motion to Transfer Venue." By
the instant motion, Roadrunner seeks an order, pursuant to 28 U.S.C
Section 1404(a), transferring the action to the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, in light of a forum-selection clause contained in three
"Independent Contractor Local Agreements" between Roadrunner and
Garcia. Garcia has filed opposition, to which Roadrunner has
replied.
At the outset, the parties disagree as to whether the
forum-selection clause is applicable to the claims brought in
Garcia's complaint. In particular, Roadrunner argues the term
"pertaining thereto" applies to the words "this Agreement", whereas
Garcia argues the phrase refers only to the "interpretation and
performance" of the Agreement, issues not raised by his
misclassification claims.
In resolving that threshold issue, Judge Chesney is guided by
"general principles for interpreting contracts." The first of
those principles is that "[c]ontract terms are to be given their
ordinary meaning." Next, "when the terms of a contract are clear,
the intent of the parties must be ascertained from the contract
itself."
Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in
opposition to the motion, Judge Chesney finds the "plain meaning,"
see id., of the phrase "pertaining thereto," read in context, is
"pertaining to the Agreement." First, the structure of the
sentence supports such interpretation. As Roadrunner points out,
the subject of the sentence is "t]is Agreement" not "interpretation
and performance." Second, there appears no reason, either as a
business or other practical matter, for the parties to agree to
have lawsuits relating to the Agreement tried in different states
depending on the particular claims asserted, and the parties have
submitted nothing to suggest they so intended. Accordingly, the
Judge finds the phrase "pertaining thereto" means "pertaining to
the Agreement."
Turning to the scope of the clause's application, the Judge notes
there is no dispute that the phrase "pertaining to" has the same
meaning as the phrase "relating to," or that the phrase "relating
to," in turn, has been held to "apply to any dispute that has some
logical or causal connection to the parties' agreement." Further,
she says the question presented here is "whether in classifying
Garcia as an independent contractor Roadrunner has violated the
law," and "that question falls within the scope of the forum
selection clause, because it 'relates to' the contracts entered
into" by those two parties. Accordingly, the Judge finds Garcia's
claims come within the scope of the forum-selection clause.
The Judge next addresses Garcia's argument that it would be
unreasonable to enforce the forum-selection clause in the instant
case. A clause is "controlling" unless the plaintiff makes "a
strong showing" that "(1) the clause is invalid due to fraud or
overreaching, (2) enforcement would contravene a strong public
policy of the forum in which suit is brought, whether declared by
statute or by judicial decision, or (3) trial in the contractual
forum will be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that the
litigant will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in
court."
The Judge finds that no such showing has been made. Accordingly,
the Court finds the forum-selection clause is enforceable.
Lastly, the Court considers Garcia's argument that the
public-interest factors weigh against transfer. Although, as noted,
courts "may consider arguments about public-interest factors,"
those factors "will rarely defeat a transfer motion." In the case,
Garcia "does not identify any public-]interest factors, such as
administrative difficulties or local interest, that would make this
an exceptional case in which the court should decline to transfer
the case despite the presence of a valid forum-selection clause."
Accordingly, the motion to transfer is granted, and the action is
ordered transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/25j6zx66 from Leagle.com.
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Carrasco Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JUSTINA CARRASCO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC; ROBINHOOD
SECURITIES, LLC; ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 8:21-cv-01202, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 27,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-22702-CMA to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, and violations of 18 U.S.C., California Civil
Code, and the California Business and Professions Code by
restricting the ability of retail investors to purchase stocks in
the open market.
Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.
Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida.
Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Naeun Rim, Esq.
Craig Rutenberg, Esq.
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 312-4000
Facsimile: (310) 312-4224
E-mail: nrim@manatt.com
crutenberg@manatt.com
- and –
Antony L. Ryan, Esq.
Kevin J. Orsini, Esq.
Brittany L. Sukiennik, Esq.
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
825 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10019-7475
Telephone: (212) 474-1000
Facsimile: (212) 474-3700
E-mail: aryan@cravath.com
korsini@cravath.com
bsukiennik@cravath.com
ROCKFORD MERCANTILE: Barfield Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rockford Mercantile
Agency, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Alicia Barfield aka
Berger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Rockford Mercantile Agency, Inc., John Does 1-25; Case No.
1:21-cv-04072 (N.D. Ill., July 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Rockford Mercantile Agency Inc. --
https://www.rockfordmercantile.com/ -- provides collection services
throughout the united states for many businesses including.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
SAMSUNG TELECOM: $2.8M Class Settlement in Norcia Suit Has Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL NORCIA, Plaintiff v. SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AMERICA, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-00582-JD (N.D.
Cal.), Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California:
(i) granted the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of
$2.8 million class action settlement; and
(ii) granted in part Norcia's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, and the incentive award.
The lawsuit is a consumer deception class action alleging that
Defendant Samsung manipulated its Galaxy S4 smartphones'
performance on "benchmarking" apps, which are performance-measuring
tools used by reviewers and consumers. Samsung is said to have
"rigged" the phones to detect commonly used benchmarking apps and
artificially boost performance of the central and graphics
processing units during the benchmarking cycle.
After years of litigation -- which included a bench trial on
arbitration contract formation, the denial of arbitration, and an
appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the Court's denial of
arbitration -- Plaintiff Norcia was left with a single claim
against Samsung under the "unfair" prong of the Unfair Competition
Law ("UCL"), based on Samsung's alleged omissions about its
benchmarking manipulation. Extensive settlement efforts followed,
and led to a proposed class action settlement which the Court has
approved on a preliminary basis. The proposed settlement class,
which has been conditionally certified, consists of "all persons or
entities who purchased one or more 16 GB Galaxy S4 smart phones in
the State of California from April 2013 until July 2013."
Judge Donato resolves Norcia's motion for final approval of class
action settlement, and the motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, and the Plaintiff incentive award.
Discussion
I. Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
Judge Donato confirms the certification of the proposed settlement
class under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. He finds that nothing material has changed on this
score since preliminary approval. The parties had initially
estimated that the settlement class had approximately 780,000
members, but they have subsequently determined, through cell phone
carriers' data, that the actual class size is approximately 367,000
individuals. This number is more than ample for the numerosity
requirement under Rule 23(a). No class member or party has
challenged the propriety of the class certification.
The Judge certifies a final settlement class of "all persons or
entities who purchased one or more 16 GB Galaxy S4 smart phones in
the State of California from April 2013 until July 2013." Je also
confirms the appointment of Daniel Norcia as the class
representative, as well as the appointment of Eduardo G. Roy and
Daniel C. Quintero of Prometheus Partners, L.L.P., and Alec Cierny
of The Cierny Firm as the class counsel.
On the Rule 23(e)(1) notice requirement, the Court approved the
parties' notice plan, which included email notice, two publication
notices, and a settlement website. Judge Donat finds that the
parties took the extra steps of arranging for publication notice on
a third occasion, providing personnel to staff a live, toll-free
settlement telephone number, and providing supplemental, follow-up
email notice on three separate occasions. He finds that all of
this provided notice in the best practicable manner to the class
members who will be bound by the proposal.
On the adequacy of the relief provided to the class, the proposed
settlement consists of $2.8 million in cash to be funded by
Samsung. The class members who make valid claims will receive cash
payments of up to $10 per claim from this fund. Attorneys' fees,
costs, and a potential incentive award are all to be paid from the
fund, and then the rest is proposed to be distributed to the
Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at the University
of California, Berkeley School of Law, as a cy pres beneficiary.
The settlement also includes an injunction pursuant to which
Samsung, for a period of three years, "shall require the entity
from which it purchases new Samsung smartphones to confirm that
such smartphones have not been pre-loaded with software that
detects and boosts the performance scores from benchmarking
applications."
Judge Donato finds that, on this record, the relief provided by the
settlement is adequate and fair. He says the settlement fairly
reflects the fact that the Plaintiff's claims were significantly
cut down from the four claims in the operative complaint to just a
portion of the UCL claim following the Court's rulings on Samsung's
pleadings motions. The Judge accepts that explanation, and finds
that the proposed cash payout amount is fair in the case.
The adequacy of the relief is further bolstered by the fact that
the class members will benefit broadly from the cy pres
distribution to the Samuelson Clinic. Judge Donato finds that a
substantial nexus is present in that the Samuelson Clinic trains
the next generation of practitioners on issues of consumer rights
and interests in the technology arena, matters that were front and
center in this consumer protection lawsuit over smartphone
processing speeds. Consequently, the proposed cy pres distribution
is approved. The 3-year injunctive relief negotiated by the
parties also adds to the relief to the class, and on the whole, the
adequacy of relief factor weighs in favor of final approval.
The Judge further finds no issues with the proposed treatment of
the class members relative to each other. He says all the class
members who submit valid claims may recover up to $10 each, which
will be issued to them by check. The reaction of class members
favors final approval. While the claims rate of approximately
2.035% (7,468 claims received from approximately 367,000 class
members) is not necessarily something to write home about, it is on
par with similar cases. In addition, only one class member has
requested to be excluded from the settlement, and only a single
objection was filed by Steven Helfand. It is overall a positive
response.
As for Helfand, Judge Donato has reviewed his deposition testimony,
and after considering the substance of his deposition and in-court
testimony, and observing his demeanor at the final approval
hearing, which was held by remote access, the Judge concludes that
Helfand was not a credible witness, and that he did not establish
that he is a member of the settlement class. He also notes that
Helfand is a disbarred attorney who acknowledges he has "been
involved in 50 or 60 cases as an objector or as an attorney for
objectors." The adverse credibility finding is consistent with
those of other courts. Helfand's objections are overruled for lack
of standing, and because the points he has raised lack merit for
the reasons discussed in the Order.
II. Attorneys' Fees
The class counsel has asked for $1,398,861.24 in fees. The counsel
justifies this as "10.44% of the total settlement value," by
relying on its expert's valuation of $10,594,921 for the injunctive
relief in this case and adding that to the $2.8 million cash fund,
for a "total settlement value of $13,394,921." The counsel further
states that the requested fee is reasonable when using the lodestar
method because the lodestar is approximately $1,951,060, and so the
requested $1.398 million in fees work out to a multiplier of
negative 0.72.
Judge Donato holds that the settlement class size is significantly
reduced from the litigation class size; the negotiated injunctive
relief is not specifically targeted towards benefitting class
members; and the $10 per class member payouts, while adequate, are
not a wildly overwhelming success. Taking into account all of the
circumstances of the case, he finds that 30% of the $2.8 million
common fund, or $840,000, is an appropriate attorneys' fees award
in the case.
III. Costs
The class counsel has also requested reimbursement of expenses in
the amount of $101,138.76.
Judge Donato holds that it is a reasonable amount given the
litigation activity that has taken place in the case, and the
expenses have reasonably been explained in the declarations of the
counsel. The requested reimbursement is granted. The settlement
administrator's requested additional settlement administration
costs of up to $155,500 are also approved.
IV. Incentive Award
The class counsel has requested a $7,500 incentive award for named
Plaintiff Norcia.
Judge Donato knows firsthand from seeing Plaintiff Norcia on the
witness stand during the arbitration agreement bench trial that he
has put time and effort into the case, likely more than is asked of
the usual named class action representative. The class counsel has
also declared that Plaintiff Norcia devoted "in excess of one
hundred hours assisting Class Counsel in the case." Still, $7,500
is too high, especially in comparison to the $10 that each of the
other class members will be receiving. The Judge awards $3,000 to
Norcia.
Conclusion
Judge Donato granted final approval of the class action settlement.
The single opt-out is ordered excluded from the settlement. The
pending objection by Steven Helfand is overruled for the reasons
discussed in the Order and at the final approval hearing.
The class counsel is awarded $840,000 in attorneys' fees, and
ordered reimbursed $101,138.76 in litigation expenses. The
settlement administrator is awarded additional costs of up to
$155,500. The named class representative, Daniel Norcia, is
awarded a $3,000 incentive payment.
The case will remain closed, but the counsel must file the
post-distribution accounting document on the ECF docket when the
time comes, as required by the Northern District's Procedural
Guidance for Class Action Settlements.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4xvp7nbw from Leagle.com.
SEFBO PIPELINE: Underpays Manual Laborers, Macias Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ALBERTO DE LA CRUZ MACIAS and JOSE ALBERTO DE LA CRUZ
HINOJOSA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. SEFBO PIPELINE BRIDGE, INCORPORATED,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00656 (W.D. Tex., July 26, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act by failing
to compensate the Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated
manual laborers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiffs worked exclusively for the Defendant as manual
laborers in Texas from March 25, 2021 to June 25, 2021.
Sefbo Pipeline Bridge, Incorporated is a provider of bridge,
pipeline, and concrete construction and/or repair work services,
with its principal place of business at 5306 Middle Fiskville Road,
Austin, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
VAUGHT FIRM, LLC
1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (972) 707-7816
Facsimile: (972) 591-4564
E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com
SHAMROCK SALOON: George Must File Fully Executed Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MEGHAN GEORGE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHAMROCK SALOON II LLC, dba CALICO
JACK'S CANTINA, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 17 Civ. 6663
(RA) (SLC) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Sara L. Case of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered the
parties to file their Fully Executed Settlement Agreement.
The Judge finds that the Settlement Agreement included with the
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement is signed only by the Plaintiff and her counsel. The
Plaintiff's counsel's declaration in support of the Motion, dated
Jan. 22, 2021, declared that the "Defendants' counsel has informed
me that Defendants' executed version the "Fully Executed Settlement
Agreement" is forthcoming. When it is received, it will be filed
as a supplement to this Motion." The Fully Executed Settlement
Agreement has not been filed.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ywf35ncs from Leagle.com.
SOULBOUND STUDIOS: Class Action Lawsuit Transferred to Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Poorna Shankar, writing for mmorpg, reports that in a recent
development, it seems the current class-action lawsuit against
Chronicles of Elyria developer SoulBound Studios has been
transferred to the Western District of Washington.
Although the class action suit was filed in February, it was noted
recently the case had been transferred to Western District of
Washington,
"United States District Judge Stephen V. Wilson granted defendant
Xsolla USA, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration on July 6 while
simultaneously granting Soulbound Studios' motion to transfer the
litigation to the Western District of Washington. The remaining
claims against Xsolla, the payment processor Soulbound used for
purchases made through its online store, are stayed pending the
result of arbitration, according to the minutes of a hearing on the
motions."
However, this isn't the sole development in the saga of Chronicles
of Elyria. Originally, the NDA for the alpha of their standalone
sim, Kingdoms of Elyria, included a class-action waiver. The group
currently spearheading the class-action suit stressed for people to
not sign it.
However, the NDA was later changed to apply to any backer which
does not necessarily limit the ability of signees to, "pursue a
claim, whether as an individual or a member of a class, against
Soulbound Studios arising out of, or relating to, or in connection
with your use of Soulbound Studios' website or other services not
related to the Test."
However, these changes may not go far enough since there is plenty
of room that backers could be waiving their rights to a claim
against Kingdoms of Elyria. [GN]
ST. LOUIS, MO: Furlow Appeals Civil Rights Case Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Dwayne Furlow and Ralph Torres filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Dwayne Furlow,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs v. Jon Belmar, The County of St. Louis, Missouri, and
St. Louis County Police Officer Walsh (Badge #4068), Case No.
4:16-00254-HEA, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri - St. Louis.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages for violation of constitutional rights.
The Complaint alleges that the Defendants have arrested and
detained through the use of unlawful Wanteds, a procedure by which
the Defendants have violated the Plaintiff's and the purported
class members' Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by
unlawful seizing the Plaintiff and purported class members,
depriving the Plaintiff and purported class members of liberty
without due process of law by detention, and retaliating against
the Plaintiff for asserting his constitutional right to remain
silent.
Defendant Jon Belmar is the chief of Police for the St. Louis
County Police Department and is sued in his official capacity as
the supervising and commanding officer of the St. Louis County
Police Department.
The Plaintiffs seek a review of the Order dated June 23, 2021,
wherein the Court dismissed Plaintiffs Furlow and Torres's claims
with prejudice pursuant to: (i) Plaintiffs' and Defendants'
stipulation on settlement entered on the record on January 27,
2021, wherein the Court dismissed with prejudice the claims of
Plaintiff Michael Gunn, representative of the estate of Howard
Liner, against Defendants Belmar, Edward Schlueter, and St. Louis
County; and (ii) the Court's Opinion, Memorandum and Order dated
October 5, 2018, wherein the Court entered judgment in favor of
Defendants Jon Belmar, Christopher Partin, Kevin Walsh, Detective
Clements, and St. Louis County as to the claims brought by
Plaintiffs Dwayne Furlow and Ralph Torres.
The appellate case is captioned as Dwayne Furlow, et al. v. Jon
Belmar, et al., Case No. 21-2640, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on July 26, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appendix is due on September 7, 2021;
-- BRIEF OF APPELLANT Dwayne Furlow and Ralph Torres is due on
September 7, 2021;
-- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Dwayne Furlow, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; and Ralph Torres are represented
by:
Ameya Sita Ananth, Esq.
Jay Cohen, Esq.
Eric A. Stone, Esq.
PAUL & WEISS
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019-6064
Telephone: (212) 373-3000
- and -
Nathaniel R. Carroll, Esq.
Maureen Hanlon, Esq.
Blake A. Strode, Esq.
ARCH CITY DEFENDERS
440 N. Fourth Street, Suite 390
Saint Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 361-8834
E-mail: ncarroll@archcitydefenders.org
bstrode@archcitydefenders.org
- and -
Darius Charney, Esq.
CENTER FOR HEALTH CARE LAW
228 Seventh Street, S.E.
Washington, DC 20003-0000
Telephone: (202) 547-7126
- and -
Omar Ahmed Farah, Esq.
Angelo R. Guisado, Esq.
CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
7th Floor, 666 Broadway
New York, NY 10012-0000
Telephone: (212) 614-6480
- and -
Thomas B. Harvey, Esq.
ADVANCEMENT PROJECT
1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 850
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 728-9557
Defendants-Appellees Jon Belmar; County of St. Louis, Missouri;
Kevin Walsh, St. Louis County Police Officer, Badge #4068;
Christopher Partin; Unknown Clements, Detective, St. Louis County
Police Department; and Ed Schlueter, St. Louis County Police
Department, are represented by:
Frank James Smith, Jr., Esq.
ST. LOUIS COUNTY COUNSELOR'S OFFICE
41 S. Central Avenue
Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000
Telephone: (314) 615-7042
STABLE ROAD: Thornton Law Reminds of September 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of Stable Road Acquisition
Corp. (NASDAQ:SRAC, SRACW, SRACU). The case is currently in the
lead plaintiff stage. Investors who purchased Stable Road stock or
other securities between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021 may
contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor protection team by
visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/StableRoad for more information.
Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call
617-531-3917.
The case alleges that Stable Road and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (i)
Momentus's 2019 test of its key technology, a water plasma
thruster, had failed to meet Momentus's own public and internal
pre-launch criteria for success, and was conducted on a prototype
that was not designed to generate commercially significant amounts
of thrust; (ii) the U.S. government had conveyed that it considered
Momentus's CEO, defendant Mikhail Kokorich, a national security
threat, which jeopardized Kokorich's continued leadership of
Momentus and Momentus's launch schedule and business prospects;
(iii) consequently, the revenue projections and business and
operational plans provided to investors regarding Momentus and the
commercial viability and timeline of its products were materially
false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis in fact; and
(iv) Stable Road had failed to conduct appropriate due diligence of
Momentus and its business operations and defendants had materially
misrepresented the due diligence activities being conducted by
Stable Road executives and its sponsor in connection with the
merger.
Interested Stable Road 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.[GN]
STATUE.COM INC: Website Not Blind-accessible, Davis Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Davis, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Statue.com,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-06217 (S.D. N.Y., July 21, 2021),
seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory
and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, costs and expenses of this action together with
reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further
relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State
Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.
Defendant is a statue and sculpture company that owns and operates
the website, www.statue.com, offering features which should allow
all consumers to access the goods and services through delivery
throughout the United States, including New York. Davis is legally
blind and claims that said website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Tel: (732) 695-3282
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
SUGARBREAK LLC: Blind Can't Access Website, Fischler Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FISCHLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUGARBREAK LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-06328-LGS (S.D.N.Y., July 26, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.sugarbreak.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the website. These alleged access barriers include, but not limited
to: (a) images are not properly labeled, (b) frames do not have a
title, (c) button elements are empty with no programmatically
determined name, (d) form controls have no label, (e) webpages have
markup errors, and (f) at least 20 headings are empty.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Sugarbreak LLC is a retailer of health supplements, headquartered
in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10017-6705
Telephone: (212) 392-4772
E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
chris@lipskylowe.com
SUNSET FOOD: Seeks 7th Cir. Review in Railey BIPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Sunset Food Mart, Inc. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled RANITA RAILEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUNSET FOOD MART,
INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-06758, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on November 24, 2020, the
lawsuit was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on Nov. 13, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-06758 to the
proceeding.
The complaint seeks relief under the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA), including damages of $1,000 to $5,000 for each
violation of Sunset's negligent and/or reckless violations of
BIPA.
The Plaintiff worked for Sunset as a General Clerk at its Lake
Forest, Illinois location from January 2016 through January 2018.
The Plaintiff alleges that she and the putative BIPA Class members
had their biometric information collected when they were "required
to place their entire hands on a panel to be scanned in order to
'clock in' and 'clock out' of work."
The appellate case is captioned as Sunset Food Mart, Inc. v. Ranita
Railey, Case No. 21-8023, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit, filed on July 26, 2021.[BN]
Defendant-Petitioner Petitioner SUNSET FOOD MART, INC. is
represented by:
Thomas E. Ahlering, Esq.
Andrew R. Cockroft, Esq.
Noah A. Finkel, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-6448
Telephone: (312) 460-5922
E-mail: tahlering@seyfarth.com
acockroft@seyfarth.com
nfinkel@seyfarth.com
Plaintiff-Respondent RANITA RAILEY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
224 S. Michigan Avenue
Chicago, IL 60604-2536
Telephone: (312) 763-6880
E-mail: acaffarelli@caffarelli.com
TEKSYSTEMS INC: Speranza Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Linesmen
---------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS SPERANZA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEKSYSTEMS, INC., and JAY W.
ALVATHER, as CEO of TEKSYSTEMS, INC., and EXCELL COMMUNICATIONS,
and ZACHARY HALL as CEO of EXCELL COMMUNICATIONS, Defendants, Case
No. 0:21-cv-04199 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay overtime wages and
failing to provide accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by TEKsystems as a linesman at Excell's
warehouse located at 111 Scott Ave., Calverton, New York from about
February 16, 2020 until March 24, 2020.
TEKsystems, Inc. is a provider of information technology staffing
and services, with a principal place of business at 7437 Race Road,
Hanover, Maryland.
Excell Communications, Inc. is a project management firm with
expertise in the development and installation of network
infrastructure for the wireless, fiber and utility industries, with
a principal place of business at 3608 7th Court South, Birmingham,
Alabama. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter J. Famighetti, Esq.
FAMIGHETTI & WEINICK, PLLC
25 Melville Park Road, Suite 235
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631)352-0050
TENNESSEE: Gov. Sued for Ending Federal Unemployment Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Caitlin McCarthy, writing for Local24, reports that out-of-work
Tennesseans have a filed a class action lawsuit against Governor
Bill Lee to get back the $300 a week from the federal government
that the state started to refusing earlier in July. Lee said ending
the benefits would get people back to work.
Alex Longstreet is one of the many a part of the lawsuit fighting
for the money he said he and thousands of others are entitled to.
"I don't want anybody to seem like I'm lazy, I don't want to work,"
Longstreet said. "I will work."
When the benefits ended July 3, Longstreet was living off of $86 a
week. Now, it's down to zero.
"It just puts me in a place where I have to either decide to eat or
risk my life and go out and find a job," Longstreet said.
Attorney Gary Blackburn said through federal COVID-19 relief funds
and state programs, his clients should be getting this money.
"We are arguing in this case that those programs do not give the
governor the authority simply because he had a political
disagreement with it to deprive these people and other Tennesseans
of the benefits of these programs," Blackburn said.
While Lee is named as a defendant, Blackburn said this is not about
politics. The state could appeal if an injunction is granted.
"I know it attacks actions taken by politicians, but I'm not here
to question their motives," Blackburn said. "I'm here to question
the legality of what they've done."
Longstreet said he's applied for a hundred jobs in just the last
two weeks but hasn't gotten a call back. While he wants to work,
he's worried about the current surge of COVID-19 cases.
"People want to know if they are going to be safe or if it's a
climate-controlled environment, if it's going to be six feet or 10
feet apart," Longstreet said. [GN]
TENNESSEE: Governor Lee Faces Suit Over Pandemic Unemployment Aid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Osborne at wmot.org reports that a class action lawsuit was
filed against the State of Tennessee seeking to force the restart
federal pandemic unemployment aid.
Gov. Bill Lee terminated the extra $300 a week in federal benefits
July 3 saying the money was encouraging workers to remain off the
job.
Tennessee is one of 26 Republican led states to end the special
pandemic aid early.
Fox Business notes that similar lawsuits have been filed in several
states. Courts in Indiana and Maryland have forced those states to
resume providing the federal aid.
President Biden has indicated he plans to end the federal program
in September.[GN]
TESLA INC: Owners Could Get $625 Each in Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lora Kolodny at cnbc.com reports that some Tesla owners could get
$625 each to settle claims that an over-the-air update, pushed to
their Model S electric sedans in May 2019, reduced their battery's
charging speed, maximum capacity and range temporarily.
According to documents filed with a U.S. District Court in San
Francisco, and obtained by CNBC, the proposed settlement would have
Tesla paying $1.5 million into a fund that would pay owners for the
reduced vehicle performance they experienced due to battery
throttling, and would cover the plaintiffs' attorney fees and
costs.
Reuters first reported on the new filings in the class action,
David Rasmussen v. Tesla Inc.
According to the filings, 1,743 Tesla Model S owners were impacted
by the software update.
In May 2019, Tesla was facing negative publicity after one of its
Model S vehicles caught fire in Hong Kong. Tesla issued a statement
at the time, saying:
"Out of an abundance of caution, we are revising charge and thermal
management settings on Model S and Model X vehicles via an
over-the-air software update that will begin rolling out, to help
further protect the battery and improve battery longevity."
A Model S owner who had been carefully tracking his battery's
performance over time, David Rasmussen, complained to the court in
August 2019 after that software update.
By October 2019, Tesla and the owners moved to try to reach a
settlement agreement and attorneys stayed the litigation. Tesla
rolled out another software update in March 2020 to restore
impacted owners' batteries to their maximum voltage over time as
they drove their Teslas.
The court filings say that 1,552 of the affected Tesla Model S
sedans have already seen their batteries' voltage fully restored,
and 57 received full battery replacements. Other Tesla owners who
experienced battery throttling should see their Model S's maximum
voltage restored as they continue to drive the cars.
As part of the proposed settlement, Tesla would also have to
"maintain diagnostic software for in-warranty vehicles to notify
owners and lessees of vehicles that Tesla determines may need
battery service or repair for certain battery issues."
The owners in the class include U.S. residents who owned or leased
a Tesla Model S experiencing the battery limitations due to Tesla's
over-the-air update in May 2019. A hearing to finalize the proposed
settlement is scheduled for Dec. 9, 2021.
Tesla owners were represented by Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, along with Ed Chen's YK Law. Attorneys fees amount to
about 25% of the settlement funds. They have proposed that Angeion
Group serve as settlement administrator.
Tesla did not respond to a request for comment. [GN]
TESLA INC: Settles Class Lawsuit Over Throttling Battery Capacity
-----------------------------------------------------------------
electrek.co reports that Tesla has agreed to settle a class-action
lawsuit over throttling battery capacity.
The court hasn't approved the settlement, but it is expected to be
and will include a payment of $625 to each affected Tesla owner.
Back in 2019, Electrek reported on several reports from Tesla
owners about seeing significant drops in range from 12 to 30 miles
following a software update.
Model S vehicles with 85 kWh battery packs, which were discontinued
in 2016, seem to be the ones affected at that point.
For most owners, the range drop happened after updating to Tesla's
2019.16.1 and .2 software updates.
Tesla owner David Rasmussen was among the ones affected, and he got
one of the most severe drops we have seen.
At the time, he told Electrek:
My 2014 Model S 85 was getting Rated Range of 247 miles until May
13. Now after the next update, it continued to drop to now 217
miles. This is an 11% drop in 5 weeks.
Rasmussen has been plotting the battery capacity degradation of his
Model S over the last 100,000 miles or so, and the drop is quite
obvious:
On top of the range loss, the DC fast-charging rate at Supercharger
stations has also been reduced. Affected owners are seeing much
slower charging sessions.
When Electrek reported on the issue, Tesla told us that the goal of
the update is to "protect the battery and improve battery
longevity," and it resulted in a range loss for only "a small
percentage of owners."
This created a lot of confusion among the owners affected by the
update, who wanted more details about the sudden need to "protect"
the battery pack.
It led to a series of lawsuits in different markets for Tesla to
compensate the affected owners.
One of those lawsuits was a class-action in the US started by
Rasmussen.
Two years later, Tesla has pushed some software updates to restore
the capacity, and it is now ready to settle the matter.
The automaker has submitted a settlement with the court that
involves paying $625 to each 1,743 Tesla Model S owners in the US
who were affected by those updates and to pay the legal fees.
Electrek contacted Rasmussen, who confirmed that his own car saw
its capacity restored, but he is aware of some owners who still
have had battery capacity issues since the update.
But as far as the settlement goes, he says that he agrees with it,
and he expects it to be accepted by the court.
If all goes well, this should settle the matter in the US, but
Tesla is not out of the woods.
Over the same matter in Norway, Tesla was found guilty by a court
and asked to pay $16,000 to thousands of owners, but the company is
expected to appeal.
Electrek's Take
I am glad to hear that most owners have seen their battery and
charging capacity restore.
At the end of the day, it looks like a lot of this could have been
resolve through better communications.
Tesla should have communicated the update in the first place to the
affected owners and let them know what was happening.
They never communicated anything until owners started to complain,
and then we reported on it, and then Rasmussen had to bring the
matter to court.
That's not a great way to operate.[GN]
TRACTOR SUPPLY: Settles Hydraulic Fluid Products Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Read this notice carefully. Your legal rights may be affected
whether you act or do not act.
If you purchased Super S Supertrac 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid,
Super S 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid, Cam2 ProMax 303 Tractor
Hydraulic Oil, and/or Cam2 303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil from Tractor
Supply Company (including Del's Feed & Farm Supply), Orscheln Farm
and Home, Rural King, and/or Atwood Stores between December 1,
2013, and the present, a Class Action Lawsuit and Settlement with
the Four Retailer Defendants Could Affect Your Rights
The purpose of this notice is to inform you that a $7,200,000.00
class-action settlement (the "Proposed Retailer Settlement") has
been reached with the four Retailer Defendants in a lawsuit
regarding the sale and use of Super S Supertrac 303 Tractor
Hydraulic Fluid, Super S 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid, Cam2 ProMax
303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil, and/or Cam2 303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil
("303 THF Products"). The Proposed Retailer Settlement settles
claims against Retailer Defendants Tractor Supply Company, Orscheln
Farm and Home LLC, Rural King, and Atwood, together with each of
their affiliates, divisions, subsidiaries, and assigns
(collectively referred to as "Retailer Defendants") that were
asserted in a Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") lawsuit. Plaintiffs
believe that the primary claims in the MDL are against Smitty's
Supply, Inc. and CAM2 International, LLC (collectively referred to
as "Manufacturer Defendants"), and those claims are proceeding in
the MDL and have not been settled.
The Proposed Retailer Settlement may affect your rights. For
comprehensive information about the lawsuit and settlement,
including the longer notice of settlement and the Retailer
Settlement Agreement and Release with the precise terms and
conditions of the Retailer Settlement, please see
www.303tractorhydraulicfluidsettlement.com or call 1-866-742-4955.
You may also access the Court docket in this case through the
Court's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at
www.mow.uscourts.gov/ or by visiting the office of the Office of
the Clerk of Court, United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, 400 E. 9th Street, Kansas City, Missouri,
64106, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Court holidays. The MDL lawsuit is titled In Re:
Smitty's/CAM2 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid Marketing, Sales
Practices, and Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2936, Case No.
4:20-MD-02936-SRB, pending before the Honorable Judge Stephen R.
Bough in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Missouri. Please do not telephone the Court or the Court Clerk's
Office to inquire about the Proposed Settlement or the claim
process.
In the MDL lawsuit, Plaintiffs allege (1) that the Manufacturing
Defendants' 303 THF Products did not meet the equipment
manufacturers' specifications or provide the performance benefits
listed on the product labels, (2) that the 303 THF Products were
made with inappropriate ingredients, including used transformer
oil, used turbine oil, and line flush, and (3) that use of the 303
THF Products in equipment causes damage to various parts of the
equipment. Because of the used oil and line flush contained in the
303 THF Products, Plaintiffs allege that those 303 THF Products
should not be used as tractor hydraulic fluid and that the fluid
should be flushed from equipment systems if one can afford the cost
of doing so.
The Manufacturer Defendants have denied the allegations and claims
of wrongdoing, and the claims against those Manufacturer Defendants
are ongoing. The Retailer Defendants deny any allegations and
claims of wrongdoing on their part. The Court has not decided who
is right or made a final ruling on Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs
and the Retailer Defendants have agreed to the Proposed Settlement
as to the Retailer Defendants' liability to avoid the risk and
expense of further litigation.
You may be a member of the Retailer Settlement Class if you
purchased the above-listed 303 THF Products from December 1, 2013,
to the present from Tractor Supply Company (including its Del's
Feed and Farm Supply locations), Orscheln Farm and Home, Rural King
or Atwood. If you are a member of the Retailer Settlement Class,
you may need to submit a Class Membership Form to be eligible for
benefits, and you also may be eligible to submit a
Repair/Parts/Specific Equipment Damage Claim Form. Please see
www.303tractorhydraulicfluidsettlement.com for a copy of the Class
Membership Form and Repair/Parts/Specific Equipment Damage Claim
Form or call 1-866-742-4955 to request a Class Membership Form and
Claim Form be mailed to you. The deadline to file your claim is
December 29, 2021. In order to maximize efficiency, proceeds from
this Retailer Settlement will be held for distribution at such a
point in time after monies, if any, have been received in
settlement or judgment for the Litigation Class claims against the
Manufacturer Defendants. Please be patient and check the website
for updates.
If you do not want to be legally bound by the Proposed Retailer
Settlement, you must exclude yourself by December 29, 2021. If you
do not exclude yourself, you will release any claims you may have
against the Retailer Defendants, as more fully described in the
Retailer Settlement Agreement. You may object to the Proposed
Retailer Settlement by December 29, 2021. The Long Form Notice,
available at www.303tractorhydraulicfluidsettlement.com or upon
request, explains how to exclude yourself or object.
The Court will decide whether to approve the Proposed Retailer
Settlement at the Final Fairness Hearing on January 6, 2022, at
1:30 p.m. Class Counsel also will ask that the Court award up to
$2,300,000.00 in attorneys' fees, $300,000.00 in expenses, and an
incentive payment of $500 for each of the class representatives.
The amounts awarded for attorneys' fees, expenses, and incentive
awards come out of the Retailer Settlement Class Fund. This date
for the hearing may change; see
www.303tractorhydraulicfluidsettlement.com
BY ORDER OF U.S. DISTRICT COURT
A federal court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation
from a lawyer.
Cision View original
content:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/rg2-claims-administration-llc-303-tractor-hydraulic-fluid-products-class-action-settlement-301341428.html
[GN]
TRINIDAD & TOBAGO: Policyholders Urged to Join Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Barbados Advocate reports that as the British American
Insurance Company Limited and Colonial Life Insurance Company
Limited Policyholders Group (BACOL) prepares to go to the Caribbean
Court of Justice (CCJ) in an effort to get fair and equitable
compensation for the thousands of policyholders in the seven OECS
countries, policyholders who have not yet signed up to be part of
the class action against the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, are
being urged to do so.
The call came from the President of BACOL, Dr. Patrick Antoine,
during a virtual press conference on July 26 to outline in detail
the legal action that is being taken. He said it is important that
they are able as one united OECS civilization to approach the
court, to correct the "grievous injustice" done to Eastern
Caribbean policyholders. His comments came as he said that the
outstanding amount owed to those policyholders is just over EC $800
million.
"And we're talking about literally thousands of individual
policyholders, and when, of course, you take on board the fact that
many of the entities themselves have clients or members or
customers or depositors, then we're talking about a large part of
the OECS civilization. So this is a matter that is significant it
is a matter worth fighting for, not only because there is an
intention on our part that the gods would smile on us and the court
will find favour with our case in awarding us what is due as
policyholders but because our CARICOM civilization really depends
on us standing and saying that this matter cannot go without
private parties, such as policyholders standing to affirm their
right and asking the court to give as it were, expression to what
the Treaty [of Chaguaramas] promises when it talks about
non-discrimination," he stated.
The BACOL president added, "…There is a lot riding on this --
that there are people who are elderly who have not been able to
live out their last days in comfort; that there are people who are
sick, whose funds are still held, and have not been recovered by
them; that there are students who have dropped out of school, who
will now have an opportunity if these funds are in fact awarded by
the Court, to resume their education; that there are people's
businesses that have been closed; that our civilization has been
traumatised in so many ways by this event, that we have an
obligation, all of us, if only for posterity to present the best
case possible," he contended.
Antoine argued that they must put their best foot forward if they
are to properly address the enormity of the injustice that has been
meted on the OCES policyholders. He went on to explain that while
the intention is to seek justice on behalf of both British American
Insurance Company Limited (BAICO) and Colonial Life Insurance
Company Limited (CLICO) policyholders, they are dealing with the
BAICO matter first.
"We would address it first because many of the points of law that
we would wish to use in the CLICO matter are points of law in
common with the argument we have to place before the court for the
BAICO . . . We are going to be addressing CLICO, but we've not had
the pace of accumulation of the evidentiary basis for CLICO, as we
have had for BAICO. And so rather than waiting anymore, as soon as
we could have produced the evidence for the BAICO claim, we took
the strategic decision to move at that point," he stated. (JRT)
[GN]
UNITED AMERICAN: Jones' $350K Class Deal Partly Wins Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTWAUN JONES, Plaintiff v. UNITED AMERICAN SECURITY,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00440 (N.D. Ohio), Judge James S.
Gwin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
approves in part the parties' joint motion for final approval of
their Fair Labor Standards Act collective and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 class action settlement.
Plaintiff Jones sued the Defendant, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, for state and federal wage violations. The
Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant failed to pay him and other
Class and Collective Members for overtime and end-of-shift work
duties. The parties negotiated and settled.
The parties' proposed settlement resolves the Plaintiff's FLSA
collective action and Ohio wage law class action suit. Their
Settlement Agreement provides for a gross settlement fund of
$350,000, which "represents compensation to Collective Members and
Class Members of approximately 10 minutes per day, assuming a
three-year statute of limitations." This fund will be used for the
FLSA Collective Settlement, the Rule 23 Class Settlement,
Representative Plaintiff's Service Award, the Settlement
Administrator's Fee, and attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses for
Class Counsel related to this Action. The Settlement
Administrator's Fee is capped at $25,000, but if the Fee is less
than $25,000, the excess reverts to Defendant. The Representative
Plaintiff's Service Award is $3,500.
Collective Members and Class Members will be paid proportionally
according to the amount of time they worked for Defendant. As the
parties explain, this treats the Collective and Class Members
"equitably relative to each other." The parties allot 65% of the
"net settlement fund" (the gross settlement fund minus the fees and
costs described) for "wage settlement payments" and 35% for
liquidated damages. Essentially, all Class and Collective Members
will receive a pro rata portion of the 65%, but only those who
opted in to the FLSA collective will receive a share of the 35%
liquidated damages.
Now, the parties jointly move for final approval of their
settlement. The Court preliminarily approved the parties' proposed
settlement and directed them to send notice to putative Collective
and Class Members. The Court held a fairness hearing on May 18,
2021.
Discussion
I. FLSA Collective and Rule 23 Class Action Settlement Approval
a. Class and Collective Approval
The Court previously conditionally certified the Plaintiff's
proposed FLSA Collective and Rule 23 Class. Judge Gwin finds that
nothing has changed to warrant decertification of either the
Collective or the Class at this stage. The Collective Members
remain similarly situated, and the settlement Class meets Rule 23's
standards.
b. Notice Program
The Settlement Administrator sent notice to 1,558 potential FLSA
Collective and Rule 23 Class Members. Of those, 132 people
returned the FLSA consent form and are eligible FLSA Collective
Members. Then, the Administrator sent a Rule 23 Class Notice to
1,426 people who "did not return a FLSA Consent Form or were not
otherwise eligible to participate in the FLSA Collective." The
Administrator received five requests to opt out of the Class and
did not receive any objections to the Class. Of the more than
1,400 Class notices the Administrator sent, 183 were undeliverable.
The Administrator was able to find updated addresses for a further
20 people.
The Court previously approved the parties' Collective and Class
notices. Judge Gwin finds that the notices satisfied
constitutional and Rule 23 requirements.
c. Approval Standards
Judge Gwin holds that the parties' settlement merits final
approval. Overall, with one exception, he finds that the proposed
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. It resolves a
genuine dispute between the parties. Still, the JUdge finds that
Plaintiff counsel's requested attorney's fees are too high in light
of the lodestar calculation. He slightly adjusts the awarded fee
amount.
II. Plaintiff's Requested Attorney's Fees
In this instance, the Plaintiff counsel seeks one third of the
$350,000 gross settlement fund, or $116,666.67. The Plaintiff
counsel provided a lodestar calculation of $58,257.50 for 181.05
work hours for three attorneys and an unknown number of
paralegals.
A slight reduction to 30% of the settlement fund or $105,000 is a
better reflection of the circumstances in the case, Judge Gwin
determines. He says he appreciates the Plaintiff counsel's skill
and experience. However, the cases the Plaintiff counsel cites
were more complex overall and involved more class members and
attorney hours. That does not mean that the litigation was simple
or without complexity, but it supports a small reduction in the
Plaintiff counsel's overall award. The Judge approves a 30% of the
settlement fund award for attorney's fees. The balance of the
approximately 3% not designated for attorney's fees should be
returned to the settlement fund to be factored into the Class and
Collective Members' awards.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gwin approves in part the parties'
proposed settlement. He awards the Plaintiff's attorneys 30% of
the settlement fund, rather than the requested one-third. The
difference of this downward departure should be included in the
remaining settlement fund disbursed to Class and Collective
Members. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the parties'
settlement terms.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/f4x8k36m from Leagle.com.
UNITED STATES: Deanda Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alexander R. Deanda, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. Xavier Becerra,
in his official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services;
Jessica Swafford Marcella, in her official capacity as Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs; United States of
America, Case No. 2:20-cv-00092-Z (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order certifying two classes under Rule
23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
-- The first proposed class consists of all parents of minor
children in the State of Texas.
-- The second proposed class consists of all parents of minor
children in the United States. The accompanying brief
provides the arguments and authorities.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify classes dated July 23,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ihGPBe
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
MITCHELL LAW PLLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 686-3940
Facsimile: (512) 686-3941
E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law
- and -
D. Bryan Hughes, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF D. BRYAN HUGHES
110 North College Avenue, Suite 207
Tyler, TX 75702-7221
Telephone: (903) 581-1776
E-mail: bryan@hughesfirm.com
- and -
H. Dustin Fillmore III, Esq.
Charles W. Fillmore, Esq.
THE FILLMORE LAW FIRM, LLP
1200 Summit Avenue, Suite 860
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 332-2351
Facsimile: (817) 870-1859
E-mail: dusty@fillmorefirm.com
chad@fillmorefirm.com
- and -
Alex Yarbrough, Esq.
RINEY & MAYFIELD LLP
320 South Polk Street, Suite 600
Amarillo, TX 79101
Telephone: (806) 468-3202
Facsimile: (806) 376-4509
E-mail: ayarbrough@rineymayfield.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Amber Richer, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH
1100 L Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
Telephone: (202) 514-3489
E-mail: amber.richer@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Three Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOES 1-6, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, and MERRICK GARLAND, in his official capacity as United
States Attorney General, Case No. 2:21-cv-03254-RGK-MAR (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order granting their
motion for class certification and preliminary injunction.
-- Class 1
"All persons and/or entities who maintained a safe deposit
box at US Private Vaults, whose box was searched and the
contents seized by the FBI on or about March 22, 2021, who
received the government's constitutionally-inadequate
notice of seizure of their property but filed an
administrative forfeiture claim, and seek return of their
property in judicial forfeiture proceedings using a
pseudonym and/or through sealed filings or the appointment
of a special master to administer their claims."
-- Class 2
"All persons and/or entities who maintained a safe deposit
box at US Private Vaults, whose box was searched and the
contents seized by the FBI on or about March 22, 2021, and
who have received no written or published notice of
seizure, and seek return of their property using a
pseudonym, and/or through under sealed filings or the
appointment of a special master to administer their
claims."
-- Class 3
"All persons and/or entities who maintained a safe deposit
box at US Private Vaults, whose box was searched and the
contents seized by the FBI on or about March 22, 2021, but
received a constitutionally-inadequate notice, and seek
return of their property using a pseudonym, and/or through
sealed filings or the appointment of a special master to
administer the relief they seek."
The Plaintiffs DOES 1-6, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, request the Court to allow them and the
putative class members to use a pseudonym to file claims in any
judicial civil forfeiture action filed by the government relating
to the seized USPV safe deposit boxes. They move the Court to
certify three classes of putative class members seeking such
relief.
The Plaintiffs further move the Court to enter a preliminary
injunction enjoining the government from civilly forfeiting
property seized from USPV boxes for which the government provided
inadequate and unconstitutional seizure notices, or provided no
notice at all, pending any potential judicial forfeiture
proceedings involving this property. Plaintiffs also move, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), that the Court order
the return of property that was stored in USPV safe deposit boxes
for which the government did not serve or publish a notice of
seizure, or provided inadequate notice.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 23, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lE0YUj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric Honig, Esq.
Marina del Rey, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ERIC HONIG
P.O. Box 10327
Telephone: (310) 699-8051
Facsimile: (310) 943-2220
E-mail: erichonig@aol.com
- and -
Richard M. Barnett, Esq.
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
105 West F Street, 4th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
E-mail: richardmbarnett@gmail.com
Telephone: (6l9) 231-1182
Facsimile: (619) 233-3221
- and -
Michael S. Chernis, Esq.
CHERNIS LAW GROUP P.C.
Santa Monica Water Garden
2425 Olympic Blvd., Suite 4000-W
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Telephone: (310) 566-4388
Facsimile: (310) 382-2541
E-mail: Michael@chernislaw.com
- and -
Eric D. Shevin, Esq.
SHEVIN LAW GROUP
15260 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 784-2700
Facsimile: (818) 784-2411
E-mail: eric@shevinlaw.com
- and -
Paul L. Gabbert, Esq.
2530 Wilshire Boulevard
Second Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90403
E-mail: plgabbert@aol.com
Telephone: (424) 272-9575
Facsimile: (310) 829-2148
- and -
Devin J. Burstein, Esq.
WARREN & BURSTEIN
501 West Broadway, Suite 240
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 234-4433
E-mail: db@wabulaw.com
UNITED STATES: Settles Class Action Seeking Relief From OPT Delays
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shivani Mago at thequint.com reports that the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services on 26 July, reached a
settlement with plaintiffs in a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief
from delays in Optional Practical Training (OPT) adjudication.
The USCIS denied all allegations but agreed to offer interim relief
to the plaintiffs, adding that the negotiations were carried out in
"good faith". The terms of the consent order will also benefit the
putative class - others affected by the same issues as the
plaintiffs, reported The Times of India.
What is The Law Suit About?
The OPT or the Optional Practical Training is a 1992 law that
allows those on academic study or F-1 visas to work in the US for a
year after their graduation in order to gain experience in their
chosen field. The 2016 order allows this OPT time to be extended
for another 24 months for students in the STEM fields – that is,
science, technology, engineering and math.
The class action suit was filed in October 2020, when the USCIS
allegedly slowed or stopped the processing of OPT and STEM
extension applications which affected a lot of International
students, including those from India.
Eighteen plaintiffs, who are students on the F-1 visa, and have
applied, or will apply, for permission to stay in the US on
completion of their formal studies for OPT, alleged that "USCIS
slowed and/or stopped processing applications, causing the named
plaintiffs and other similarly-situated students (who are referred
to as unnamed or putative class members) to potentially be removed
from the US when the grace period following their education program
ends, as well as to lose job offers, income, health insurance, and
lose their opportunities to register for the H-1B lottery". [GN]
VAXSERVE INC: Pennsylvania Court Affirms Order in Weitzner Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARI WEITZNER, M.D., Appellant v. VAXSERVE, INC.,
FORMERLY KNOWN AS VACCESS AMERICA, INC., AND SANOFI PASTEUR, INC.,
FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PASTEUR, INC., Case No. 1296 MDA 2020
(Pa. Super.), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirms the order
entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County.
The order denied Weitzner's petition for relief after the court
entered a judgment of non pros for failure to proceed in favor of
the Defendants.
On Feb. 14, 2005, Weitzner filed a class action, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, against the Defendants.
In Weitzner's complaint, he avers that beginning as early as April
21, 2004, the Defendants transmitted or caused to be transmitted
unsolicited facsimile advertisements to him and other members of
the class, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(c) and 47 C.F.R. Section
1200(a)(3). On Oct. 29, 2007, the Defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment asserting that Weitzner: (1) lacked standing to
bring the class action; (2) had not established that Sanofi Pasteur
Inc. violated the TCPA; and, (3) advanced claims barred by the
statute of limitations.
On June 17, 2008, the Honorable Carmen D. Minora issued an order
holding that (i) governing law prevents TCPA nationwide class
action suits from being maintained in Pennsylvania courts; (ii) Ari
Weitzner, M.D., is not an appropriate representative plaintiff to
represent, all other similarly situated for putative class action
purposes; (iii) the two-year Pennsylvania statute of limitations
governs private TCPA claims within the Pennsylvania Constitution;
and (iv) the remaining individual private TCPA claim is restricted
to any unsolicited facsimile transmissions that were received by
Weitzner within two years of the date of filing his complaint.
On Dec. 24, 2009, Weitzner renewed his motion for leave to amend
his complaint, which the court denied and dismissed. Thereafter,
on May 3, 2013, Judge Minora issued an order striking the case from
his trial list due to inactivity.
On Jan. 24, 2020, slightly less than seven years later, the
Defendants filed a petition seeking the entry of a judgment of non
pros based upon Weitzner's failure to litigate or advance this
action with the requisite diligence. On Feb. 13, 2020, Weitzner
filed his opposition to the Defendants' petition seeking entry of a
judgment of non pros.
The court heard oral argument on the Defendants' petition the
following day; and, over Weitzner's objection, granted the
Defendants additional time to file a supplemental brief, which
would establish the prejudice suffered, and which would support the
entry of judgment of non pros. The Defendants served their
supplemental brief on March 19, 2020; Weitzner filed his reply on
April 15, 2020. On May 19, 2020, the court granted the Defendants'
petition for entry of judgment of non pros, finding Weitzner failed
to diligently prosecute this action without a compelling reason,
and that the Defendants suffered prejudice caused by the delay. On
May 20, 2020, an entry of judgment of non pros was entered against
Weitzner.
On June 8, 2020, Weitzner filed the instant petition for relief
from the judgment of non pros, seeking relief under Pa.R.C.P.
3051(c). On July 21, 2020, the Defendants filed their response in
opposition to Weitzner's petition for relief from judgment of non
pros. On Sept. 4, 2020, the court issued the order that is the
subject of this appeal, denying Weitzner's petition for relief from
the entry of judgment of non pros.
Weitzner filed a timely notice of appeal that same day. On Oct.
13, 2021, the court ordered Weitzner to submit a concise statement
of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
On appeal, Weitzner raises the following issues for the Superior
Court's review: (1) Whether the trial court properly denied, sub
silentio, Weitzner's request to amend his petition for relief from
judgment of non pros in the event that the trial court were to
find, as it ultimately did, that he did not satisfy the requirement
of Pa.R.C.P. 3051(c)(2) to allege facts showing that there is a
meritorious cause of action; (2) whether the trial court, in
granting the Defendants' second petition, properly found that they
had met their burden of showing that they had suffered actual
prejudice as a result of the death of a potential witness even
though the Defendants had not provided: (a) any evidence that the
potential witness had possessed any material information, nor (b)
any evidence that the death of the potential witness had caused any
such information, if he had possessed it in the first place, to
have become unavailable; and (3) whether it was proper of the trial
court, upon recognizing that the Defendants' petition for entry of
judgment of non pros did not show actual prejudice, to sua sponte
permit them to file a second petition.
In his first issue, Weitzner argues that the trial court should
have permitted him to amend his petition for relief from the
judgment of non pros since the trial court found that he did not
satisfy the requirement of Pa.R.C.P. 3051(c)(2) to "allege facts
showing that there is a meritorious cause of action.
The Superior Court agrees with the trial court that Weitzner's
petition merely repeats averments from his complaint, which is
insufficient to establish a meritorious cause of action. Moreover,
even though he claims to be prepared to proceed with the case,
nothing in the record before the Court suggests that Weitzner can
cure the defect.
Second, Weitzner contends that the trial court erred in finding
that the Defendants suffered prejudice when the court granted the
entry of the judgment of non pros. Specifically, he argues that:
(1) the evidence showed that Cooper merely forwarded the lists from
Info USA; (2) the Defendants had not shown that Cooper had any more
knowledge about the lists than other List Strategies employees; (3)
List Strategies remains in business, and one of its two principals
has been with List Strategies for 25 years; and (4) Info USA
remains in business.
The Superior Court agrees with the Defendants that "any appeal
related to a judgment of non pros lies not from the judgment
itself, but from the denial of a petition to open or strike."
Indeed, in Intech Metals, Inc. v. Meyer, 153 A.3d 406, 411 (Pa.
Super. 2016), the Court specifically found that an appellant's
"failure to 'show facts to exist that would support a meritorious
cause of action' in their petition to open, operates as a waiver of
the issues concerning the underlying interlocutory order entering
judgment of non pros." Since the Superior Court has already
determined that Weitzner's petition to open the judgment of non
pros failed to establish a meritorious cause of action, Weitzner
has waived any challenge to the underlying interlocutory order.
Finally, Weitzner challenges the trial court's decision to permit
the Defendants to file a supplemental brief in support of their
petition for entry of judgment of non pros. Weitzner alternatively
characterizes the supplemental brief as a second petition since
Defendants' supplemental brief could invoke new evidence as to the
issue of prejudice.
This issue, too, is waived, because Weitzner's challenge actually
addresses the trial court's interlocutory order entering judgment
of non pros, the Superior Court holds.
In light of the foregoing, the Order is affirmed. Judgment is
entered.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/dxtxwae8 from Leagle.com.
VIRGIN ORBIT: Mercado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Virgin Orbit, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Michael Mercado, individually and on
behalf other members of the general public similarly situated v.
Virgin Orbit, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; VO
Holdings, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Vox Space, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; Case No. BCV-21-101743 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Kern Cty., July 29, 2021).
The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."
Virgin Orbit -- http://www.virginorbit.com/-- is a company within
the Virgin Group which provides launch services for small
satellites.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan D. Lee, Esq.
LAW OFFCIES OF BRIAN P. SMITH & ASSOC.
13340 183rd Street, Suite 210
Cerritos, CA 90703
Phone: 562-653-2300
Fax: 562-652-2309
Email: jonathan.lee@kemper.com
VISTA SHADOW: Former Apartment Residents File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Erika Stone, writing for The Black Wall Street Times, reports that
two former residents of Vista Shadow Mountain Apartments in Tulsa
have filed a class action lawsuit against the housing complex,
according to court documents. Each and every Vista Shadow Mountain
resident was forced to move out of the apartment buildings due to
unsafe living conditions, per the Tulsa Fire Department.
The Vista Shadow Mountain Apartment complex faced multiple fire
code violations, as well as building maintenance code violations.
The Tulsa fire department recently labeled the apartment buildings
"imminently dangerous" for residents, and asked the complex to
ensure all residents were out of their homes by last Friday, July
23rd.
In addition to the multiple housing code violations, Vista Shadow
Mountain Apartments had not previously paid many of its utility
bills, leaving residents facing the threat of water shut-offs. The
$108,000 past-due water bill to the city was only recently
covered.
Residents forced to move
Meanwhile, residents of Vista Shadow Mountain were shocked when
they received notice of eviction earlier this summer, after being
kept in the dark about the apartment complex's myriad of problems.
In July, Tulsa city officials ordered all residents to leave their
homes due to the danger posed by the buildings.
The lawsuit states, "The greedy, unethical landlord at Vista Shadow
Mountain Apartments must be held accountable for the flagrant and
illegal mistreatment of its tenants, some of whom are among Tulsa's
most vulnerable citizens." The lawsuit continues that residents
were taken advantage of while Vista Shadow Mountain apartment
complex avoided paying its utility bills, did not engage in
requested home maintenance, and thus created unsafe and unsanitary
living conditions for residents.
Tulsa District 7 City Council Lori Decter Wright was instrumental
in the efforts to support residents as they were forced to flee
their homes. "Nobody should live like that," said Decter-Wright.
"Our seniors and our families with disabilities deserve quality
safe housing."
The lawsuit insists that Vista Shadow Mountain Apartments violated
several state laws, including breach of contract, negligence,
failure to abide by the laws governing landlords and tenants, as
well as violations of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act. The
plaintiffs are seeking at least $75,000 in compensatory damages, as
well as other damages, and have requested a trial by jury. [GN]
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settlement Reached in Touareg Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that a Volkswagen Touareg class action
lawsuit settlement has been reached over drain valves that clog and
cause water to damage the air filters and engines.
The VW class action lawsuit includes:
"All persons and entities that purchased or leased any model year
2015-2017 Volkswagen Touareg vehicle imported and distributed by
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. in the United States and Puerto
Rico."
The two Touareg owners who initially filed the lawsuit allege
2015-2017 Volkswagen Touareg drain valves don't allow water to
properly drain from the engine compartments.
This causes water to collect in the air box bottoms damaging the
air filters and in some cases being ingested into the engines. This
can also allegedly cause sudden engine failure, a problem which
allegedly requires that VW repair or replace the engines under the
terms of the warranties.
According to the plaintiffs, the drain valve problems can cause
damage to the "[c]ylinder block[s] and all internal parts" and
their "cylinder head[s] and all internal parts."
Although Volkswagen agreed to settle the class action lawsuit, the
automaker denies the existence of any defects with the vehicles or
the drain valves.
The lawsuit argues Volkswagen should offer a comprehensive program
to repair or replace the drain valves and/or engines in all Class
Vehicles, and/or buyback all Class Vehicles, and to fully reimburse
and make whole all Class and Subclass members for all costs and
economic losses."
VW Touareg Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Terms
Nothing is official until the judge grants final approval, but the
settlement doesn't provide buybacks, engine replacements or full
reimbursements, but the drain valves can be removed if an owner
wants it.
According to the settlement, a service action will be available for
affected Touareg customers to have the drain valves removed by
dealerships. Additionally, a dealer will install a new air filter,
but only if the filter is wet or shows signs of water damage.
VW Touareg customers will have a year from the class action notice
date or the first date the service action becomes available,
whichever is later.
VW Touareg Drain Valve Partial Reimbursement Program
The class action lawsuit settlement includes a partial
reimbursement program for customers who spent money for expenses
for repairs of water damage to the "air intake system, air filter,
engine, turbocharger, or intercooler of a Settlement Class Vehicle
that was caused by a clogged Drain Valve."
A customer may be eligible for reimbursement of 75% of the expenses
paid for repairs related to the drain valves.
However, the partial reimbursement program has limitations.
The settlement says partial reimbursement is limited to expenses
that have not already been "reimbursed by Defendants, an authorized
Volkswagen dealer, an insurer, providers of extended warranties, or
any other third-party entity who paid for all or some of the
expenses."
If engine damage repairs were performed by a non-Volkswagen
dealership, the customer is entitled to receive 75% reimbursement
up to a maximum of $9,909.
"Thus, for example, if the amount of the repair invoice exceeds
$9,909, the Settlement Class Member shall be entitled to receive a
reimbursement of seventy-five percent (75%) of $9,909." -- VW
Touareg lawsuit settlement
Volkswagen also won't be responsible for work performed by a non-VW
dealership, and there will be no reimbursement for "damages
resulting from abuse, altercation or modification, a collision or
crash, vandalism, and/or other extraneous causes."
VW Touareg customers will be required to submit valid forms and the
required proof of repairs and expenses.
The Touareg owners who filed the lawsuit will receive $5,000 each,
and the attorneys representing them are expected to receive
$775,000.
The VW Touareg class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey: Crandell, et al., v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc, et al.
The plaintiffs are represented by Bursor & Fisher. [GN]
WAKE COUNTY, NC: Gorrell Wins Bid for Conditional Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN E. GORRELL, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WAKE
COUNTY, Case No. 5:21-CV-00129-M (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard
E. Myers II entered an order that:
1. granting the Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Conditional
Class Certification and Court-Supervised Notice Under 29
U.S .C. section 216(b);
2. directing the Defendant to provide within 15 days to
Plaintiffs counsel an electronic listing of the names, job
titles, last-known mailing addresses, last-known cell
phone numbers, last-known email addresses, and dates of
employment of the putative plaintiffs who worked Late Peak
or Night shifts on any Friday nights/Saturday mornings
which overlapped workweeks during the three years prior to
the date of commencement of this action through the
present; and
3. directng the Plaintiff to mail to each listed putative
plaintiff a copy of Plaintiffs Notice and Consent to Join
Form, including a 45 day reminder, and that said Notice
may also be emailed and sent via text message consistent
with Plaintiffs Motion, which has been approved by this
court, and putative collective action plaintiffs shall
have 60 days from the mailing of Notice to opt into this
action.
Wake County is located in the U.S. state of North Carolina. As of
July 1, 2019, the population was 1,111,761, making it North
Carolina's most populous county as well as the most populous county
in the Carolina.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zZGEAk at no extra charge.[CC]
WASHINGTON REGIONAL: Nguyen Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Washington Regional
Medical Center. The case is styled as Phillip Nguyen, Individually,
and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Persons v. Washington
Regional Medical Center, Case No. 5:21-cv-05140-PKH (W.D. Ark.,
July 29, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Washington Regional -- https://www.wregional.com/ -- is the only
not-for-profit, community-owned and locally governed health care
system in Northwest Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shawn B. Daniels, Esq.
DANIELS LAW FIRM, PLLC
129 W Sunbridge Dr
Fayetteville, AR 72703
Phone: (479) 521-7000
Fax: (479) 437-2007
Email: shawn@danielsfirm.com
WISE FOODS: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Mislabeled Chips
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a New York federal judge dismissed a proposed
class action against Wise Foods Inc. on July 26, saying the
plaintiff failed to show that reasonable customers would believe
its "Cheddar & Sour Cream" chips were all natural. [GN]
YELLOWSTONE CAPITAL: J.B. Plumbing RICO Suit Goes to S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled J.B. PLUMBING AND HEATING OF VIRGINIA, INC., and
JERRY BUSH, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. YELLOWSTONE CAPITAL, LLC, CAPITAL ADVANCE SERVICES LLC,
CAPORLY LLC, DAVID GLASS, YITZHAK STERN, TSVI H. DAVIS, and THE
JOHN AND JANE DOE INVESTORS, Case No. 654273/2021, was removed from
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
July 27, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-06386 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged fraud and violations
of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
J.B. Plumbing and Heating of Virginia, Inc. is a plumbing and
heating services company based in Roanoke, Virginia.
Yellowstone Capital, LLC is a provider of a type of small-business
funding based in New Jersey.
Capital Advance Services LLC is a provider of a type of
small-business funding based in New York.
Caporly LLC is a limited liability company based in New York. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher R. Murray, Esq.
STEIN ADLER DABAH & ZELKOWITZ, LLP
1633 Broadway, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 867-5620
E-mail: cmurray@steinadlerlaw.com
ZIA MARIA: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Servers, Hyseni Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
TRIUMF HYSENI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZIA MARIA LITTLE ITALY INC. and IYAD KHALED
HAMSHO, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06318 (S.D.N.Y., July 26,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid spread-of-hours pay,
illegal deduction from gratuities, failure to provide wage notice
and accurate wage statements, and retaliation.
The Plaintiff worked as a server at Zia Maria Little Italy located
at 138 Mulberry St., New York, New York from September 15, 2019
until June 18, 2021.
Zia Maria Little Italy Inc. is an owner and operator of restaurant
under the name Zia Maria Little Italy located at 138 Mulberry St.,
New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey E. Goldman, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY E. GOLDMAN
501 Fifth Ave., Suite 1900
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-8999
Facsimile: (646) 693-2289
ZYNGA INC: Wins Motions to Compel, Dismiss in Breach Data Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Merken at Reuters reports that a California federal judge
dealt a blow to plaintiffs suing mobile game developer Zynga Inc
over a 2019 data breach, greenlighting a bid to compel arbitration
of some users' claims and granting a motion to dismiss the rest.
The ruling in consolidated litigation before U.S. District Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland is a victory for San
Francisco-based Zynga, which operates online games including Words
With Friends and Draw Something.
Elizabeth Deeley of Latham & Watkins, an attorney for Zynga, didn't
immediately respond to a request for comment. Nor did Adam Zapala
of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, who represents the plaintiffs.
Zynga originally moved to compel arbitration last year before the
plaintiffs filed their consolidated lawsuit combining four cases.
In January, the judge ordered the app users to hand over
information in discovery associated with their accounts to help
determine whether the claims belong in arbitration.
Plaintiffs filed a 27-count consolidated class action complaint in
March, faulting Zynga for allegedly failing to protect customers'
personal information in relation to a September 2019 breach of its
customer database. Zynga renewed its motion to compel, asserting
that the information it got through discovery led to records
showing three plaintiffs accepted the company's 2019 terms of
service. Zynga also moved to dismiss the action as to the remaining
plaintiffs for lack of standing.
The judge found the three plaintiffs entered into an arbitration
agreement when accepting the 2019 service terms. She also concluded
the agreement "clearly and unmistakably delegated questions of
arbitrability to the arbitrator," and the plaintiffs don't "raise a
valid unconscionability challenge specifically directed at the
delegation clause."
The judge granted the motion to dismiss the rest of the plaintiffs'
claims with leave to amend. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's recent
decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, she found the complaint as
currently pled doesn't satisfy a standing requirement to show a
concrete injury-in-fact.
The case is I.C., et al v. Zynga Inc, U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, No. 4:20-cv-01539. [GN]
[*] RV Dealer Settles Wage Class Action Lawsuit for $4 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Irene Spezzamonte, writing for Law360, reports that a recreational
vehicle dealer agreed to pay almost $4 million to settle a proposed
class action in California federal court alleging the company
failed to properly pay its workers' wages. [GN]
[*] Transunion Ruling to Derail Commuters' Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
said on July 26 that the U.S. Supreme Court's recent TransUnion
ruling limiting standing in consumer class actions derails a bid by
Garden State commuters to certify their class over a politically
motivated traffic jam in 2013. [GN]
[*] U.S. Securities Class Action Filings Down in First Half 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed 112 new securities class action lawsuits in
federal and state courts in the first half of 2021, down 25% from
the second half of 2020. This was the lowest number of filings
since the first half of 2015, according to a report released on
July 28 by Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law School
Securities Class Action Clearinghouse.
The report, Securities Class Action Filings -- 2021 Midyear
Assessment, found that the decline in filing activity was largely
driven by a 66% drop in filings related to mergers and acquisitions
compared to the second half of 2020. Of the 112 filings in the
first half of 2021, only 12 were M&A filings. Federal and state
court class actions alleging claims under the Securities Act of
1933 also declined, continuing the trend observed in 2020.
Despite the substantial decrease in total filings, federal filings
related to special purpose acquisition companies doubled in the
first half of 2021 compared to all of 2020. There were 14 SPAC
filings in the first six months of 2021, with more than half
alleging that the potential targets defrauded investors by
misrepresenting their product's viability.
"As SPAC IPOs continued to explode in 2020 and earlier this year,
filings against SPAC-related entities also increased sharply in the
first half of 2021," said Alexander "Sasha" Aganin, report coauthor
and Cornerstone Research senior vice president. "Former SPACs have
experienced a Section 10(b) litigation rate of approximately 14%
after completion of their mergers, which is roughly comparable to
the cumulative litigation rate experienced by traditional IPOs over
the subsequent three years."
The report also found a sharp decline in the number of 1933 Act
filings in state rather than federal court, continuing the trend
observed in the Securities Class Action Filings—2020 Year in
Review. All five 1933 Act claims filed in state court in the first
half of 2021 were brought in New York.
"The better the market for investors, the worse the market for
class action securities lawyers," observed Joseph A. Grundfest,
director of the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action
Clearinghouse, and a former commissioner of the Securities and
Exchange Commission. "Plaintiff lawyers typically rely on sharp
price declines for their best cases, and if the market isn't
generating those declines, plaintiffs' ability to file big-ticket
securities fraud actions is limited."
COVID-19 filings began tapering off in the first half of 2021, with
six of the 10 pandemic-related filings occurring in January and
February and only one filing in May or June. Of these filings, 50%
were related to treatments or vaccines that failed to make it to
market.
Key Trends
U.S. Exchange-Listed Companies: Of U.S. exchange-listed companies,
1.9% were the subject of a core filing (those excluding M&A claims)
in the first half of 2021. If this trend continues, this would be
the lowest exposure since 2015.
Disclosure Dollar Loss: The DDL Index fell to $80 billion, down 50%
from the second half of 2020 and 54% below its all-time high in the
first half of 2019. The DDL is the dollar value change in the
defendant firm's market capitalization between the trading day
immediately preceding the end of the class period and the trading
day immediately following the end of the class period.
Maximum Dollar Loss: The MDL Index dropped sharply to $361 billion
in the first half of the year, down nearly 64% from the second half
of 2020. MDL is the dollar value change in the defendant firm's
market capitalization from the trading day with the highest market
capitalization during the class period to the trading day
immediately following the end of the class period.
U.S. vs. Non-U.S. Companies: There were 15 federal filings against
non-U.S. issuers in the first half of 2021. The annualized total is
on track to be significantly less than the record-high 74 filings
against non-U.S. issuers in 2020.
Industries: Plaintiffs targeted the Energy sector with nearly twice
as many filings as in the second half of 2020. The Consumer
Non-Cyclical sector continued to be the most common sector with 31
filings, 13 of which were in the Biotechnology subsector.
Federal Circuits: There were 41 core federal filings in the Second
Circuit during the first half of 2021, up from 36 in the second
half of 2020. The Ninth Circuit saw 28 core filings during the
period, down from 43 in the second half of 2020.
About Cornerstone Research
Cornerstone Research -- http://www.cornerstone.com-- provides
economic and financial consulting and expert testimony in all
phases of complex litigation and regulatory proceedings. The firm
works with an extensive network of prominent faculty and industry
practitioners to identify the best-qualified expert for each
assignment. Cornerstone Research has earned a reputation for
consistent high quality and effectiveness by delivering rigorous,
state-of-the-art analysis for more than thirty years. The firm has
over 700 staff and offices in Boston, Chicago, London, Los Angeles,
New York, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and Washington.
About the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action
Clearinghouse
The Securities Class Action Clearinghouse is an authoritative
source of data and analysis on the financial and economic
characteristics of federal securities fraud class action
litigation. The SCAC maintains a database of more than 6,000
securities class action lawsuits filed since passage of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The database also
contains copies of complaints, briefs, filings, and other
litigation-related materials filed in these cases. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***