/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210818.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, August 18, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 159
Headlines
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Sept. 27 Deadline
AETNA INC: Peters Must File Class Cert. Brief by Sept. 1
ALTICOR INC: Class Action Over 401(k) Fees Can Proceed
AMERICAN FAMILY: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Bid to Nix Drug Price Fixing Suit Pending
APHRIA INC: Must Face Securities Class Action in Ontario
ARCONIC CORP: Howard Consolidated Suit Underway
AREA WIDE: Nelson Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
ATHIRA PHARMA: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of August 24 Deadline
ATI PHYSICAL: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Class Claims
BAUSCH HEALTH: Backed by J&J in Shower to Shower Litigation
BAUSCH HEALTH: Dismissal of Gutierrez Suit Under Appeal
BAUSCH HEALTH: Final Approval of Settlement Under Appeal
BAUSCH HEALTH: Settlement Reached in RICO-Related Class Suit
BAUSCH HEALTH: Timber Hill Class Action Ongoing
BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
BIODELIVERY SCIENCES: Drachman Class Suit in Delaware Underway
BLUE APRON: Settlement in IPO Related Suit Gets Final Nod
BOOKING HOLDINGS: German Hotel Association Suit Underway
CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces Class Action Over Sugar Free Claims
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Chinchilla Putative Class Suit Underway
CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Medel Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
CHARLOTTE, NC: Court Dismisses Driver Privacy Class Action
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
CLARK COUNTY, NV: Allison Must File Individual Suit by Sept. 28
CLEVELAND, OH: Water Department Sued Over Unfair Billing Practices
CLIPPER MAGAZINE: Loftus Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
COINBASE GLOBAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline
CONCHO RESOURCES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of September 28 Deadline
CONSOL ENERGY: Casey-Fitzwater Consolidated Class Suit Ongoing
CREDIT.COM INC: Bid to Strike Class Claims in Buell TCPA Suit Nixed
CUMULUS MEDIA: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Over 401(k) Plan Pending
DAVITA INC: Faces Pena Putative Class Suit in Illinois
EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Court Approves Olenik Settlement Deal
ELI LILLY: Actos-Related Class Suits in Canada Dismissed
ELI LILLY: Continues to Defend Litigation Over Insulin Products
ELI LILLY: Faces Mosaic Health Purported Class Suit
EPIC AIRCRAFT: Hanney Files Suit in D. Oregon
EVERI HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Oct. 4
EVOQUA WATER: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Nov. 1
EXELON CORP: Bid to Dismiss ComEd Customers' Suit Pending
EXELON CORP: Discovery in ComEd's Lobbying Related Suit Ongoing
EXELON CORP: Plaintiffs' Bid for Leave to File Sur-Reply Pending
EXKLUSIV RESORTS: Club Members Appeal S$1,500 Class Action Award
FREDDIE MAC: Suit Over Preferred Stock Purchase Deal Underway
GRACIA FASHION: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GREENSKY INC: California Court Partially Stays Beylea Class Suit
GREYSTAR REAL: Class Cert. Response Filing Extended to Sept. 13
HANAH LIFE: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
HCA HEALTHCARE: Faces Antitrust Class Action in N.C. Over Monopoly
HEATHER MUELLER: Class Suit Filed in D. Minnesota
HOLY SEE: Hurn Files Suit in N.D. New York
HONDA AIRCRAFT: DM Volbleu Files Suit in E.D. Texas
HONEY-CAN-DO: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HOST HEALTHCARE: Class Settlement in Blount Has Prelim. Approval
HOUSEHOLD STAFFING.COM: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
INOGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss California Securities Suit Pending
INVESTINET LLC: Disla Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
JIGGY PUZZLES: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Sault City Mulls Joining Opioid Class Action
JPMORGAN CHASE: E.D. California Dismisses Bouskos Class Suit
LA MER EYE: Zimmerman Law Files Class Action Over Under Eye Cream
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Block & Leviton Named Lead Counsel in Morton Suit
LENDINGTREE LLC: Winters Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
LOANCARE LLC: Six Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia
LOUISIANA: LDH Faces Class Action Over Medicaid Youth Benefits
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Appeal on Stay of Strougo Suit Denied
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Employee Stock Purchase Plan Suit Still Stayed
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Shaver Putative Class Suit Further Stayed
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in LeJeune Class Suit
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Settlement in Securities Court Gets Initial OK
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Wendco Putative Class Suit Ongoing in Puerto Rico
MARRIOTT INT'L: Court Enters Consumer Track Briefing Sched Order
MASTERWORKS.IO: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Court Certifies Class in OLEPTF Suit
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: McCurdy Putative Class Suit Underway
METROPOLITAN LEARNING: Bid to Compel Discovery in Heras Suit Denied
MICROCHIP TECH: Discovery Ongoing in Jackson Putative Class Suit
MONARCH RECOVERY: Mullins FDCPA Suit Removed to W.D. North Carolina
NASDAQ INC: Still Defends City of Providence Case
NETFLIX INC: Fort Scott Files Video Franchise Fee Class Action
NIKOLA CORP: Court to Reevaluate Lead Plaintiff in UCL Related Suit
OATLY GROUP: Gross Law Firm Reminds of September 24 Deadline
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Court Dismisses Securities Class Suit
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Bid to Nix Consolidated Class Suit in NY Pending
ONESPAN INC: Almendariz Securities Class Suit Dismissed
ORIGINAL PAPERBACKS: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ORLANDO BATHING SUIT: Redick Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
PLUM PBC: Court Appoints Interim Co-Lead Counsel in Baby Food Suit
PORSCHE AG: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Warranty Repairs
PREFERRED CAREGIVERS: Court Junks Badon Bid to Certify Class
PTC INC: 401(K) Plan Related Suit in Massachusetts Underway
RADIUS GLOBAL: Daidone Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Millman & Powell Won't Be Tried Separately
REALOGY GROUP: Appeal in Whitlach Putative Class Suit Pending
RENOVACARE INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of September 14 Deadline
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Bid to Reconsider Remand of Gordon Suit Denied
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Bid to Amend Sanchez Putative Suit Pending
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Initial OK of Ruf-Tepper Settlement Pending
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Ponsa-Rabell Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit
SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in Agar Class Action Stayed
SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in Kelley Class Suit Ongoing
SPORTSTRADE INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STABLE ROAD: Schall Law Firm Reminds of September 13 Deadline
TOYOTA MOTOR: Menzel Files Suit in M.D. Florida
TRANSUNION LLC: Greenberg Traurig Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
TRUCK INSURANCE: 54-40 Brewing Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
TRUCK INSURANCE: R2B2 Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
UNITED STATES: Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over OPT Delays
UNITED THERAPEUTICS: MSP Recovery Suit Transferred to Florida
VALARIS LIMITED: Zhang Files Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
VALE SA: Plan for Distribution of Securities Suit Settlement OK'd
VALEANT PHARMA: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
WALMART INC: Barton Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action in N.J. Over Inspection Fees
WILLIS TOWERS: Settlement in Merger Related Suits Gets Final OK
WYNN RESORTS: Nevada Court Pares Down Securities Class Action
XEROX CORP: Time to Perfect Appeal in Ribbe Extended to Sept. 13
XPO LOGISTICS: Dismissal of Labul Class Suit Under Appeal
XPO LOGISTICS: Trial in Alvarez, Arrellano Suits Set for September
ZYMERGEN INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of October 4 Deadline
ZYMERGEN INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 4 Deadline
ZYNGA INC: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in I.C. Data Breach Suit
*********
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Sept. 27 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
September 27, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
case filed on behalf of investors who purchased AdaptHealth Corp.
("AdaptHealth" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AHCO) securities between
November 11, 2019 and July 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
Investors suffering losses on their AdaptHealth investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On July 19, 2021, Jehoshaphat Research published a report alleging,
among other things, that AdaptHealth obscured its true organic
growth by, "[r]etroactively changing past organic growth numbers to
be higher, with no disclosure about the change." It further alleged
that, "[w]hile management claims (and consensus estimates reflect)
an organic growth trajectory of 8-10%, AHCO is in fact experiencing
double-digit organic decline." The report noted that the Company's
attempts to manipulate its organic growth trajectory are "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
approximately 6%, to close at $23.96 per share on July 19, 2021,
thereby injuring investors.
The complaint filed in this class action 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) AdaptHealth had misrepresented its organic growth
trajectory by retroactively inflating past organic growth numbers
without disclosing the changes, in violation of SEC regulations;
(2) accordingly, the Company had materially overstated its
financial prospects; and (3) as a result, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired AdaptHealth securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than
September 27, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of
the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may
retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about
this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
AETNA INC: Peters Must File Class Cert. Brief by Sept. 1
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Peters v. Aetna Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00109 (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Martin
Reidinger enters an order granting motion for extension of time to
file supplemental briefs text of order:
-- The parties' joint motion is granted, and the Plaintiff
shall have through and including September 1, 2021, within
which to file a supplemental brief regarding class
certification.
-- The Defendants shall have through and including October 1,
2021, within which to file their responsive brief. The
Plaintiff shall have through and including October 15,
2021, within which to file a reply.
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act and Racketeering Act.
Aetna is an American-managed health care company that sells
traditional and consumer-directed health care insurance and related
services, such as medical, pharmaceutical, dental, and behavioral
health.[CC]
ALTICOR INC: Class Action Over 401(k) Fees Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Amway parent
company Alticor Inc. must face claims that it mismanages its $1.2
billion 401(k) plan by offering bad investments and overpaying on
fees, after a federal judge in Michigan allowed the proposed class
action to proceed in its entirety.
Amway argued that it improved the plan in recent years by moving to
cheaper and better-performing investments and lowering the plan's
annual administrative fees. But retirement plan fiduciaries have an
ongoing duty to prudently manage the plan, and Amway can't use
late-made changes to avoid liability for earlier periods of alleged
mismanagement, Judge Paul L. Maloney said in an opinion. [GN]
AMERICAN FAMILY: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher S. Dodrill, Esq., Phillip H. Hutchinson, Esq., Lisa M.
Simonetti, Esq., Sylvia E. Simson, Esq., David G. Thomas, Esq, and
Gregory A. Nylen, Esq., of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, in an article
for The National Law Review, discussed court rulings in the law
firm's Class Action Litigation Newsletter - Summer 2021: Sixth,
Seventh, and Eighth Circuit.
, in an article for The National Law Review, discussed court
rulings in the law firm's Class Action Litigation Newsletter -
Summer 2021: Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuit.
Highlights from this issue include:
Supreme Court rules that class members who did not suffer concrete
harm do not have Article III standing to sue for violation of a
federal statute.
Supreme Court holds that generic nature of a misstatement is
important evidence to show no price impact at the class
certification stage, but that defendant bears the burden of
persuasion to prove a lack of price impact.
District court in the First Circuit (D. Mass.) grants motion to
strike nationwide class allegations at the pleading stage.
Second Circuit holds that a plaintiff cannot establish
injury-in-fact sufficient to confer Article III standing where
personally identifiable information was inadvertently disclosed and
not yet misused by any third party.
Third Circuit follows majority rule that American Pipe tolling
applies to plaintiffs who file individual suits before a ruling on
class certification.
Fourth Circuit finds ERISA plaintiff established Article III
standing and reverses denial of class certification.
District court in Fifth Circuit (N.D. Tex.) denies class
certification because individual issues predominate in case
alleging fraud and misrepresentation.
Divided Sixth Circuit panel affirms dismissal of proposed insurance
coverage class action.
Seventh Circuit affirms summary judgment for defendant in consumer
class action, finding no reasonable consumer would be materially
misled by alleged misrepresentations.
Eighth Circuit reverses class certification, holding that
plaintiff's expert's computer technology and algorithm cannot
overcome individualized inquiry into economic loss.
Ninth Circuit reverses approval of class action settlement, holding
that under revised Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(iii), a district court must
review a proposed class settlement for unfair collusion.
D.C. district court permits tolling of putative class members'
claims under American Pipe because they are based on the same acts
and will be proven by the same evidence as prior claims.
Sixth Circuit
Wilkerson v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 997 F.3d 666 (6th Cir. 2021)
Divided Sixth Circuit panel affirms the dismissal of a proposed
Ohio class-action suit seeking payment of taxes and fees in
insurance payouts for totaled cars.
Wilkerson, a driver with an automotive insurance policy with
American Family Insurance Company, was in a car accident and
suffered a total loss. She sued American Family on behalf of a
putative class of insureds after American Family refused to
reimburse the taxes and fees that she paid for her new car as a
part of the "actual cash value" under the policy terms. Wilkerson
argued that excluding the taxes and fees from the "actual cash
value" was a breach of contract under the policy, which stated that
American Family "will pay for loss of or damage to your insured car
and its equipment, less the deductible." American Family moved to
dismiss, contending that other language in the policy controlled.
Concluding that "actual cash value" was unambiguous and did not
include taxes and fees, the district court granted the motion to
dismiss. The plaintiff appealed.
The Sixth Circuit panel affirmed in a 2-1 decision. The majority
opinion acknowledged that the phrase "actual cash value of stolen
or damaged property" could carry some ambiguity. Relying on Ohio
rules for contractual interpretation, the court recognized that
"actual value" could mean "the measure of damages for the loss or
destruction of personal property is the market value" or "the
replacement cost minus normal depreciation for the damaged car."
But considering the four corners of the policy, the court concluded
that American Family's policy confirms that "actual cash value"
means market value only. Otherwise, the court explained, American
Family provisions limiting liability to (1) "the actual cash value
of the stolen or damaged property" or (2) "the amount necessary to
repair or replace the property" would be rendered "incoherent"
under the plaintiff's interpretation.
Bradford v. Team Pizza, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-60, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
99413 (S.D. Ohio May 26, 2021)
Southern District of Ohio adds to growing circuit split, ruling
that employer's reimbursement of vehicle-related expenses not bound
by IRS reimbursement rate method.
In this minimum-wage FLSA collective action, pizza delivery drivers
sued Team Pizza Inc., a company operating a portfolio of pizza
delivery stores in Ohio. The plaintiffs alleged that Team Pizza
"violated the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA and Ohio laws by
requiring delivery drivers to pay for automobile expenses and other
job-related expenses out of pocket and not properly reimbursing
them for these expenses."
The dispute turned on the Department of Labor's anti-kickback
regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 531.35, which requires that employers pay
minimum wages "finally and unconditionally" or "free and clear" of
job-related expenses. Under the regulation, "if it is a requirement
of the employer that the employee must provide tools of the trade
which will be used in or are specifically required for the
performance of the employer's particular work, there would be a
violation of the law in any workweek when the cost of such tools
purchased by the employee cuts into the minimum or overtime wages
required to be paid under the law." Here, the alleged "work tools"
were pizza delivery vehicles. The plaintiffs claimed they were
entitled to reimbursement under the IRS mileage reimbursement
rates, while Team Pizza argued that only a "reasonable
approximation" method is required.
Federal courts have differed on how the FLSA treats the
reimbursement of pizza delivery drivers' vehicle expenses. Some
courts (including district courts in Ohio and Illinois) have held
that the IRS mileage reimbursement rate is the proper standard.
Conversely, other courts (including district courts in Colorado,
Kansas, New York, and Missouri) have decided that the FLSA does not
require employers to use the IRS rate but instead allows them
"reasonably approximate" pizza delivery drivers' vehicle expenses.
The approaches differ depending on whether the anti-kickback
regulation is deemed ambiguous. Courts adopting the IRS
reimbursement rate method have determined that the anti-kickback
regulation is ambiguous because it lacks guidance on how the
mileage rate should be calculated. Other courts have adopted the
reasonable approximation standard set forth in FLSA regulations
because they explain how reimbursements are treated for calculating
overtime rates.
Despite another Southern District of Ohio decision adopting the
mileage-reimbursement-rate approach, the court in this case sided
with Team Pizza. Relying on a plain-language interpretation of the
FLSA regulation, the court found that the anti-kickback regulatory
language was not "genuinely ambiguous" and ruled that Team Pizza
could "reasonably approximate" the vehicle-related expenses and was
not required to use the actual or IRS rate to comply with the
FLSA.
Seventh Circuit
Weaver v. Champion Petfoods USA Inc., No. 20-2235, 2021 WL 2678801
(7th Cir. June 30, 2021)
Seventh Circuit affirms trial court's grant of summary judgment for
defendant on the basis that plaintiff offered no evidence from
which a reasonable consumer could prove that the mere risk of a
presence of BPA or pentobarbital rendered the phrase "biologically
appropriate" misleading and plaintiff failed to provide sufficient
evidence that a reasonable consumer would be materially misled by
representations regarding "fresh regional ingredients" or
outsourcing.
This appeal arose from the trial court's grant of summary judgment
for defendant, a manufacturer of pet food. Plaintiff alleged that
Defendant Champion Petfoods USA Inc. misrepresented its dog food in
three ways: (1) stating that the food was "biologically
appropriate"; (2) stating that it included fresh, regional
ingredients; and (3) stating that it is "never outsourced" and is
"prepared" in Champion's kitchens. Plaintiff argued that because
there was a risk that the food was contaminated with Bisphenol A
("BPA") and pentobarbital through the supply chain, the food was
not "biologically appropriate." Plaintiff further argued that
because the dog food was not made solely with fresh ingredients,
the label representation that it features fresh ingredients was
false. Finally, plaintiff asserted that the representation "never
outsourced" was false because some of the ingredients were sourced
internationally.
The Seventh Circuit upheld summary judgment regarding the
"biologically appropriate" representation finding that, with regard
to BPA, plaintiff "offered no evidence that a reasonable consumer
here would interpret 'biologically appropriate' as certifying the
product was BPA-free" and, with regard to pentobarbital, plaintiff
"lacks standing because he failed to show that the dog food he
purchased was at risk of containing pentobarbital." Similarly, the
Seventh Circuit upheld summary judgment on the fresh, regional
ingredients claim and the "never outsourced" claim because the
packaging did not state that it was made with "100% fresh regional
ingredients" and plaintiff did not offer evidence showing that a
reasonable consumer would be materially misled by the
representations.
MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 994
F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 2021)
Seventh Circuit holds that, by failing to move to compel discovery
in the district court, plaintiff could not complain on appeal that
defendant was not responsive to the general discovery requests
served during class discovery.
Plaintiff debt collectors brought a class action against Defendant
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Two years prior,
the Seventh Circuit decided an appeal in litigation between the
same parties where the district court had dismissed plaintiffs'
claims for lack of standing, affirming the district court's ruling
finding that plaintiffs had to identify specific examples of
unreimbursed payments to demonstrate the existence of an actual
injury.
The appeal in this case arose from the trial court's grant of State
Farm's motion for summary judgment. The district court ruled that,
while plaintiffs pled a concrete, individualized injury through an
illustrative beneficiary, they failed to raise a genuine issue of
material fact at summary judgment. Ultimately, the evidence showed
that the reimbursement of physical therapy at issue for the
illustrative beneficiary was for an injury that occurred prior to
the car accident from which the claim arose. As a result, the
district court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment,
and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
On appeal, plaintiffs argued that they needed additional discovery
to oppose State Farm's summary judgment motion. In particular,
plaintiffs sought additional non-party discovery related to three
additional illustrative beneficiaries that had not been pled and
asserted that State Farm was not responsive to general discovery
requests during class discovery. The Seventh Circuit held that
plaintiffs could not complain about what transpired during
discovery when they never filed any motions to compel State Farm to
respond to a single request in the district court.
Lukis v. Whitepages Inc., 19 C 4871, 2021 WL 1600194 (N.D. Ill.
Apr. 23, 2021)
District court denies motion to strike class allegations based on
matters outside the pleadings rather than on flaws inherent to the
class as alleged in the complaint.
In this putative class action under the Illinois Right of Publicity
Act, the district court was presented with multiple motions,
including Whitepages Inc.'s motion to strike class allegations.
Whitepages asserted that plaintiff's testimony demonstrated that
she was an inadequate class representative, and that class counsel
was inadequate for putting her forward as the named plaintiff. The
court noted that Whitepages's motion to strike relied heavily on
evidence outside the pleadings and noted that it is unclear whether
a motion to strike class allegations can properly go beyond the
complaint. The court reviewed authority and concluded that the
majority rule was that a motion to strike class allegations must be
limited to the face of the complaint. The court thus denied the
motion to strike.
Eighth Circuit
Ford v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., 995 F.3d 616 (8th Cir. 2021)
Eighth Circuit holds that technology cannot overcome individualized
inquiry into economic loss in duty of best execution case.
Plaintiff alleged that the defendant, a brokerage company, violated
its duty of best execution by routing trades to best profit the
company rather than the customer. The plaintiff sought relief on
behalf of both himself and a putative class. The magistrate judge
recommended denial of Rule 23(b)(3) class certification due to a
lack of predominance. He reasoned that each class member's economic
loss would depend on an order-by-order analysis and thus defeat
Rule 23's common issue requirement. However, the district court
disagreed and granted class certification based on the plaintiff's
expert, who presented an algorithm designed to "solve the
predominance problem" and estimate each class member's economic
loss.
Finding that economic loss was an individualized inquiry, the
Eighth Circuit reversed the class certification. The court noted
that economic loss associated with duty of best execution
violations was a more difficult damages assessment than standard
broker's fraud claims. This contributed to the challenge of
certifying a best execution case, as the court highlighted in
relying on a Third Circuit decision that also denied certification
for similar claims, Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2001). Ultimately, the Eighth
Circuit concluded: "[D]espite advances in technology, individual
evidence and inquiry is still required to determine economic loss
for each class member. . . . Advanced computing power can expedite
that determination, but it cannot change its underlying nature by
converting individual experience into common evidence."
In addition, the court determined that the plaintiff sought to
represent an improperly defined class. The class definition
incorporated two elements of the claim -- those seeking best
execution and those sustaining economic loss. In doing so, class
membership depended on having a valid claim, allowing "putative
class members to seek a remedy but not be bound by an adverse
judgment." For both reasons, the Eighth Circuit reversed the class
certification and remanded the case.
Ahmad v. City of St. Louis, 995 F.3d 635 (8th Cir. 2021)
Eighth Circuit determines class certification is premature where
Rule 23(b)(2) relief seeks to remedy discrete experiences of
different named plaintiffs.
The three named plaintiffs sought to represent a putative class of
protesters who allegedly had been unconstitutionally exposed to
chemical agents, subjected to excessive force and improper
searches, and arrested. Each of the named plaintiffs had
experienced one of these actions, and they collectively sought
injunctive relief against the City of St. Louis to limit police
authority to interfere in public demonstrations. Under Rule
23(b)(2), the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, noting that the city had acted or refused to
act on grounds generally applicable to the protesters'
allegations.
The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that class certification had
been premature. Although Rule 23(b)(2) certification may be
appropriate for injunctive or declaratory relief, Rule 23(b)(2)
classes require "even greater cohesiveness" than Rule 23(b)(3)
classes because (b)(2) class members cannot opt out. As such, class
certification is only appropriate where the same injunctive or
declaratory relief would remedy all of the class members' injuries.
In this case, each of the three named plaintiffs experienced a
different injury, but they attempted to bring all three under the
same umbrella by seeking broad injunctive relief, phrasing their
request as "one super-claim." The court rejected this approach.
Because the evidence at this stage had not established that a
single injunction would remedy each of the plaintiffs' -- and thus,
class members' -- injuries, the Eighth Circuit reversed the
certification ruling as premature.
Donelson v. Ameriprise Fin. Servs., 999 F.3d 1080 (8th Cir. 2021)
Eighth Circuit holds motion to strike class allegations does not
waive right to arbitrate and may be considered prior to a motion
for class certification.
The plaintiff had entered into an agreement for the
defendant-brokers to handle the plaintiff's financial trading. This
agreement contained an arbitration clause that required arbitration
for all disputes except putative or certified class actions. After
trading practices allegedly went wrong, the plaintiff filed a
putative class action against the defendants for violations of
various federal securities laws and regulations. The defendants
simultaneously moved to strike the class allegations and compel
arbitration in line with the agreement. The district court denied
both requests.
On appeal, the plaintiff asserted that, by seeking to strike the
class allegations, the defendants had waived their right to
arbitrate under the agreement. The Eighth Circuit disagreed,
stating that a party may waive their right to arbitrate if they
invoke the "litigation machinery" by engaging in the litigation
process and seeking decisions on the merits. However, the court
determined that filing a motion to strike class allegations in
conjunction with the motion to compel arbitration did not run afoul
of the defendants' right to arbitrate. In fact, it complemented
this right because it addressed the single exception to the
arbitration clause -- a putative or certified class action.
The court next considered whether the district court abused its
discretion in declining to strike the class allegations. Circuits
are split on whether it is premature for a court to strike class
allegations under Rule 12(f) prior to a motion for class
certification where certification is a "clear impossibility." The
Eighth Circuit determined it is not premature. Striking class
allegations prior to certification briefing aligns with Rule
23(c)(1)(A), which allows courts to discern certification "at an
early practicable time" without limiting that decision to the
timing of motion practice. Requiring the defendants to delay this
request would not only "needlessly force the parties to remain in
court" when they had previously agreed to arbitrate but also risk
the defendants' engaging in the "litigation machinery" and placing
their arbitration right in jeopardy. As such, the Eighth Circuit
held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the
motion to strike, finding that the plaintiff's causes of action
lacked cohesion, involved individualized inquiries, and otherwise
did not comply with Rule 23(b)(2) requirements.
Aaron Van Nostrand, Kara E. Angeletti, Layal Bishara, Andrea N.
Chidyllo, Gregory Franklin, Brian D. Straw also contributed to this
article. [GN]
AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Bid to Nix Drug Price Fixing Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
AmerisourceBergen Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to
dismiss the putative class action suit initiated by Reliable
Pharmacy, together with other retail pharmacies and North Sunflower
Medical Center, over alleged price-fixing, market allocation and
bid rigging of generic drugs.
In December 2019, Reliable Pharmacy, together with other retail
pharmacies and North Sunflower Medical Center, filed a civil
antitrust complaint against multiple generic drug manufacturers,
and also included claims against the Company, H.D. Smith, and other
drug distributors and industry participants.
The case is filed as a putative class action and plaintiffs purport
to represent a class of drug purchasers including other retail
pharmacies and healthcare providers.
The case has been consolidated for multidistrict litigation
proceedings before the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
The complaint alleges that the Company and others in the industry
participated in a conspiracy to fix prices, allocate markets and
rig bids regarding generic drugs. In March 2020, the plaintiffs
filed a further amended complaint.
On July 15, 2020, the Company and other industry participants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint.
The motion to dismiss is fully briefed and the parties are awaiting
a ruling from the court.
AmerisourceBergen Corporation sources and distributes
pharmaceutical products in the United States and internationally.
AmerisourceBergen Corporation was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania.
APHRIA INC: Must Face Securities Class Action in Ontario
--------------------------------------------------------
Rochon Genova LLP disclosed that on August 6, 2021, the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice granted the plaintiff in Vecchio Longo
Consulting Services Inc. v. Aphria Inc. et. al. (Court file No.
CV-19-00614086-00CP) (the "Action") leave to proceed, with a global
securities class action for misrepresentations pursuant to section
138.3 of the Ontario Securities Act against Aphria Inc. and its
former officers and directors Victor Neufeld and Cole Cacciavillani
(the "Aphria Defendants"). In the same decision, the Court
certified this secondary market shareholder claim as a class
proceeding (the "Secondary Market Claim"), and appointed Vecchio
Longo Consulting Services Inc. as representative plaintiff.
In addition, the Court certified the misrepresentation claims in
the Action pursuant to section 130 of the Ontario Securities Act
("Prospectus Claim") as a class action against the Aphria
Defendants and securities underwriters Canaccord Genuity Corp.,
Clarus Securities Inc., Cormark Securities Inc., Haywood Securities
Inc., and Infor Financial Group Inc. (the "Underwriters"),
conditional upon class counsel bringing a motion within one hundred
days of the decision for the appointment of a representative
plaintiff for class members that purchased Aphria shares pursuant
to a $258 million prospectus offering made by Aphria that closed on
June 28, 2018 ("Prospectus Purchasers"). To facilitate the
identification of Prospectus Purchasers who may serve as a
representative plaintiff, the Underwriters are each ordered to
deliver within thirty days of the decision an affidavit listing
their respective purchasers of shares in the prospectus offering.
Subject to the conditional certification of the Prospectus Claim,
the class is defined as:
"All persons other than Excluded Persons, wherever they may reside
or be domiciled, who acquired Aphria common shares during the Class
Period, where Excluded Persons are defined as Defendants, their
past and present subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors,
senior employees, partners, legal representatives, heirs,
predecessors, successors and assigns, and any individual who is a
member of the immediate family of an Individual Defendant."
The Class Period is defined as "the period of time after 07:00 ET
January 29, 2018 until 08:25 ET December 3, 2018."
Formal Notice and Opt-Out provisions will be by further Order of
the Court. [GN]
ARCONIC CORP: Howard Consolidated Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------
Arconic Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated purported class action suit entitled, Howard
v. Arconic Inc. et al.
A purported class action complaint related to the Grenfell Tower
fire was filed on August 11, 2017 in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against ParentCo and
Klaus Kleinfeld.
A related purported class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
September 15, 2017, under the caption Sullivan v. Arconic Inc. et
al., against ParentCo, three former ParentCo executives, several
current and former ParentCo directors, and banks that acted as
underwriters for ParentCo's September 18, 2014 preferred stock
offering.
The plaintiff in Sullivan had previously filed a purported class
action against the same defendants on July 18, 2017 in the Southern
District of New York and, on August 25, 2017, voluntarily dismissed
that action without prejudice.
On February 7, 2018, on motion from certain putative class members,
the court consolidated Howard and Sullivan, closed Sullivan, and
appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case.
On April 9, 2018, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated purported
class action filed a consolidated amended complaint. The
consolidated amended complaint alleged that the registration
statement for the Preferred Offering contained false and misleading
statements and omitted to state material information, including by
allegedly failing to disclose material uncertainties and trends
resulting from sales of Reynobond PE for unsafe uses and by
allegedly expressing a belief that appropriate risk management and
compliance programs had been adopted while concealing the risks
posed by Reynobond PE sales.
The consolidated amended complaint also alleged that between
November 4, 2013 and June 23, 2017 ParentCo and Kleinfeld made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information about ParentCo's commitment to safety, business and
financial prospects, and the risks of the Reynobond PE product,
including in ParentCo's Form 10-Ks for the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, its Form 10-Qs and
quarterly financial press releases from the fourth quarter of 2013
through the first quarter of 2017, its 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016
Annual Reports, its 2016 Annual Highlights Report, and on its
official website.
The consolidated amended complaint sought, among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and
expert fees and expenses.
On June 8, 2018, all defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On June 21, 2019,
the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in full,
dismissing the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety
without prejudice.
On July 23, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. The second amended complaint alleges generally the same
claims as the consolidated amended complaint with certain
additional allegations, as well as claims that the risk factors set
forth in the registration statement for the Preferred Offering were
inadequate and that certain additional statements in the sources
identified above were misleading. The second amended complaint
seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages and an
award of attorney and expert fees and expenses.
On September 11, 2019, all defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. Plaintiffs' opposition to that motion was filed
on November 1, 2019 and all defendants filed a reply brief on
November 26, 2019.
On June 22, 2020, counsel for Arconic Corporation and the
individual defendants filed a letter apprising the Court of a
recent decision by the Third Circuit and discussing its relevance
to the pending motion to dismiss. Pursuant to an Order by the Court
directing the plaintiffs to respond to this letter, the plaintiffs
filed a letter response on July 9, 2020.
On June 23, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The
Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' claim against ParentCo,
certain officers and directors and the underwriters based on the
registration statement for the Preferred Offering, with the
exception of one statement and only as to purchases made before
October 23, 2015.
In addition, plaintiffs' claim based on ParentCo's statements in
other SEC filings, in product brochures, and on websites was
dismissed in its entirety as to Kleinfeld and dismissed in part and
allowed in part as to ParentCo. The Court also dismissed the
control-person liability claims in their entirety.
The parties stipulated to an August 12, 2021 deadline for
defendants to file an answer to the second amended complaint in
light of the Court's partial dismissal.
Arconic said, "Given the preliminary nature of this matter and the
uncertainty of litigation, Arconic Corporation cannot reasonably
estimate at this time the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or
the possible loss or range of losses in the event of an unfavorable
outcome."
Arconic Corporation manufactures engineered products and forgings.
The Company offers aluminum sheets, plates, and other extruded
products for the aerospace, automotive, commercial transportation,
brazing, and industrial markets. Arconic serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
AREA WIDE: Nelson Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARL NELSON and KHARI
PORTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. AREA WIDE PROTECTIVE, INC.; and W.E.K. ENTERPRISES,
LLC, formerly known as ROADTEK TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00895-AJT-MSN (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying this action and for court-
authorized notice pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA");
2. approving the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the
consent form;
3. directing a production by Defendants of names, job titles,
last known mailing addresses, home and cell phone numbers,
business and home email addresses, dates of employment,
locations of employment, last four digits of Social
Security Numbers, and dates of birth of all putative
plaintiffs within 15 days of the Court's Order;
4. granting the ability to distribute the Notice and Opt-in
Form via first class mail, email, and text message to all
putative plaintiffs of the conditionally certified
collective, with the Reminder Notice to be sent 45-days
after the initial mailing to all non-responding putative
plaintiffs; and
5. requiring Defendants to post the Notice in a conspicuous
location at any place of employment where putative
plaintiffs work, and to enclose said Notice in putative
plaintiffs' paystubs.
Area Wide Protective Inc provides transportation support and
engineering services. WEK is in the lawn and garden services
industry in Saint Paul Park, Minnesota.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 5 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iTiQsr at no extra
charge.[CC]
Counsel for the Plaintiffs, Carl Nelson, Khari Porter, and all
others similarly situated, are:
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
E-Mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com
- and -
Francisco Mundaca, Esq.
Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq.
THE SPIGGLE LAW FIRM, PLLC
4830A 31st St., S., Suite A
Arlington, VA 22206
Telephone: (202) 449-8527
Facsimile: (202) 517-9179
E-Mail: fmundaca@spigglelaw.com
rtucci@spigglelaw.com
ATHIRA PHARMA: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of August 24 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on Aug. 10
disclosed that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
Athira Pharma, Inc.("Athira" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:ATHA)
between September 18, 2020 and June 17, 2021 (the "Class Period"),
including Athira common stock purchased pursuant or traceable to
the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") in September 2020.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Athira securities during the
Class Period and/or in the IPO, you may move the Court for
appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than August 24, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any
recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of
whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff
Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.
Athira investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and
how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should contact Sharon M.
Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358.
Background on the Athira Securities Class Litigation
Athira, headquartered in Bothell, Washington, is a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of molecular
technology in the treatment of neurological diseases, including
Alzheimer's disease. In September 2020, Athira completed its IPO by
issuing and selling approximately 13 million shares of common stock
at $17.00 per share, for net proceeds of approximately $186
million.
The actions allege that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted to
state material adverse facts regarding the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, the actions allege that
defendants failed to disclose to investors that the doctoral
research conducted by Athira's Chief Executive Officer and
President, defendant Leen Kawas contained improperly altered images
and constituted potential research misconduct. Kawas's research
reportedly was foundational to Athira's efforts to develop
treatments for Alzheimer's disease and cited in a patent licensed
by Athira.
On June 17, 2021, after markets closed, Athira announced that Kawas
was placed on temporary leave pending an investigation by a special
committee into "actions stemming from doctoral research Dr. Kawas
conducted while at Washington State University." The same day, the
scientific publication STAT reported that the investigation
involves allegedly altered images appearing in four papers for
which Kawas was the lead author. According to STAT, Kawas's
research papers "are foundational to Athira's efforts to treat
Alzheimer's" and her "doctoral work laid the biological groundwork
that Athira continues to use in their approach to treating
Alzheimer's." According to an investment analyst, the investigation
could have "clear negative implications for how we/investors view
the asset, and/or management credibility." On this news, the price
of Athira common stock fell $7.09 per share, or 38.9%, from a
closing price of $18.24 on June 17, 2021, to close at $11.15 per
share on June 18, 2021, on heavy trading volume.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in
San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Munich is an
internationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the
rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility
worldwide.
The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."
For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/. [GN]
ATI PHYSICAL: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Class Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law
firm, continues its investigation on behalf of ATI Physical
Therapy, Inc. ("ATI" or the "Company") (NYSE: ATIP) investors
concerning the Company and its officers' possible violations of the
federal securities laws.
If you suffered a loss on your ATI 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/ati-physical-therapy-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.
On June 16, 2021, ATI completed its business combination with
Fortress Value Acquisition Corp. II ("FVAC II"), a special purpose
acquisition company.
On July 26, 2021, ATI reported its financial results for the second
quarter of 2021. The Company reduced its fiscal 2021 guidance due
to "the acceleration of attrition among [its] therapists in the
second quarter and continuing into the third quarter."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.62, or 43%, to
close at $4.72 per share on July 26, 2021, thereby injuring
investors.
Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding
ATI should consider their options to aid the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150
or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com.
About GPM
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing
investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex
class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has
consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018,
GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class
action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of
settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40
attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of
dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust,
consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled
cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including
cases involving financial restatements, internal control
weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and
forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading,
violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ
investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's
attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all
industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy,
consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs,
financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech,
cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past
successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry
publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times,
Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's,
Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]
BAUSCH HEALTH: Backed by J&J in Shower to Shower Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended July 3, 2021, that in accordance with an
indemnification agreement, Johnson & Johnson will continue to
vigorously defend Bausch in each of the remaining actions related
to Shower to Shower(R) body powder product that are not voluntarily
dismissed or subject to a grant of summary judgment.
Since 2016, the Company has been named in a number of product
liability lawsuits involving the Shower to Shower(R) body powder
product acquired in September 2012 from Johnson & Johnson; due to
dismissals, thirty of such product liability suits currently remain
pending.
Potential liability (including its attorneys' fees and costs)
arising out of these remaining suits is subject to full
indemnification obligations of Johnson & Johnson owed to the
Company, and legal fees and costs will be paid by Johnson &
Johnson.
Twenty-eight of these lawsuits filed by individual plaintiffs
allege that the use of Shower to Shower()R caused the plaintiffs to
develop ovarian cancer, mesothelioma or breast cancer.
The allegations in these cases include failure to warn, design
defect, manufacturing defect, negligence, gross negligence, breach
of express and implied warranties, civil conspiracy concert in
action, negligent misrepresentation, wrongful death, loss of
consortium and/or punitive damages.
The damages sought include compensatory damages, including medical
expenses, lost wages or earning capacity, loss of consortium and/or
compensation for pain and suffering, mental anguish anxiety and
discomfort, physical impairment and loss of enjoyment of life.
Plaintiffs also seek pre- and post-judgment interest, exemplary and
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. Additionally, two proposed
class actions have been filed in Canada against the Company and
various Johnson & Johnson entities (one in the Supreme Court of
British Columbia and one in the Superior Court of Quebec), on
behalf of persons who have purchased or used Johnson & Johnson's
Baby Powder or Shower to Shower(R).
The class actions allege the use of the product increases certain
health risks (British Columbia) or negligence in failing to
properly test, failing to warn of health risks, and failing to
remove the products from the market in a timely manner (Quebec).
The plaintiffs in these actions are seeking awards of general,
special, compensatory and punitive damages.
On November 17, 2020, the British Columbia court issued a judgment
declining to certify a class as to the Company or Shower to
Shower(R), and at this time no appeal of that judgment has been
filed.
In accordance with the indemnification agreement, Johnson & Johnson
will continue to vigorously defend the Company in each of the
remaining actions that are not voluntarily dismissed or subject to
a grant of summary judgment.
Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.
BAUSCH HEALTH: Dismissal of Gutierrez Suit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended July 3, 2021, that the appeal in the
order of dismissal in Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et
al., Case No. 37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL, is pending.
On June 19, 2019, plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in
California state court against Bausch Health US and Johnson &
Johnson (Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No.
37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL), asserting claims for purported
violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False
Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law in connection with their
sale of talcum powder products that the plaintiffs allege violated
Proposition 65 and/or the California Safe Cosmetics Act.
This lawsuit was served on Bausch Health US in June 2019 and was
subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, where it is currently pending.
Plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive
relief, and reimbursement/restitution.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims, which was
granted in April 2020 without prejudice.
In May 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in June
2020, filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint further,
which was granted.
In August 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Fifth Amended Complaint. On
January 22, 2021, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with
prejudice.
On February 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 1, 2021, Appellants
(Plaintiffs) filed their opening brief, Appellees' response briefs
are currently due September 1, 2021.
The Company and Bausch Health US dispute the claims against them
and intend to defend each of these lawsuits vigorously.
Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.
BAUSCH HEALTH: Final Approval of Settlement Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended July 3, 2021, that the appeals on the
court's order granting final approval of the settlement in the
consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
15-cv-07658, is pending.
On December 16, 2019, the Company announced that it had agreed to
settle, subject to final court approval, the consolidated
securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-07658).
On January 31, 2021, the District Court issued an order granting
final approval of this settlement.
On February 4, 2021, Timber Hill LLC filed a notice of appeal of
the Court's final approval order, which overruled its objections to
the allocation of settlement proceeds as between common stock and
options.
On March 1, 2021, Cathy Lochridge filed a notice of appeal of the
Court's final approval order, which overruled her objections as to
the attorneys' fees awarded to class counsel.
Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.
BAUSCH HEALTH: Settlement Reached in RICO-Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended July 3, 2021, that an agreement in
principle has been reached in the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) related putative class suit.
Between May 27, 2016 and September 16, 2016, three actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
against the Company and various third-parties (these actions were
subsequently consolidated), alleging claims under the federal
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) on behalf of
a putative class of certain third-party payors that paid claims
submitted by Philidor for certain Company-branded drugs between
January 2, 2013 and November 9, 2015.
The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants committed predicate acts of mail and wire fraud by
submitting or causing to be submitted prescription reimbursement
requests that misstated or omitted facts regarding: (1) the
identity and licensing status of the dispensing pharmacy; (2) the
resubmission of previously denied claims; (3) patient co-pay
waivers; (4) the availability of generic alternatives; and (5) the
insured's consent to renew the prescription.
The complaint further alleges that these acts constitute a pattern
of racketeering or a racketeering conspiracy in violation of the
RICO statute and caused plaintiffs and the putative class
unspecified damages, which may be trebled under the RICO statute.
The parties have reached an agreement in principle to resolve the
consolidated putative class action that is subject to additional
documentation and, thereafter, subject to court approval.
Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.
BAUSCH HEALTH: Timber Hill Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended July 3, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Timber Hill LLC,
v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al.
On June 6, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company
and certain current or former officers and directors.
This action, captioned Timber Hill LLC, v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc., et al., (Case No. 18-cv-10246), asserts
securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased
call options or sold put options on the Company's common stock
during the period January 4, 2013 through August 11, 2016.
On June 11, 2018, this action was consolidated with In re Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, (Case
No. 15-cv-07658).
On January 14, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Timber Hill complaint.
Briefing on that motion was completed on February 13, 2019.
On August 15, 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the
Timber Hill action, holding that this complaint was a legal nullity
as a result of the June 11, 2018 consolidation order.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.
BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kristin Mazzell, Sharon
Shuler and George Winningham, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. George Oliver Berkeley County Coroner
and Berkeley County, Case No. 2:20-cv-03937-DCN (D.S.C.) the
Parties asks the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying this action as a collective
action for recovering overtime compensation under 29
U.S.C. section 216(b), and
2. defining the Putative Class as follows:
"All current and former DeputyCoroners at any time from
three years prior to the date the Court issues an Order
Conditionally Certifying the Class ("Time Period")."
3. directing the Defendants provide Plaintiffs' counsel with
the following for all members of the Putative Class,
within 10 business days of an order:
1. Names; and
2. All known mailing addresses; and
4. directing the Plaintiffs' counsel to complete the
following:
Within twenty-one (21) business days of an order, mail,
via first class U.S. mail, a copy of the Notice and
Consent Form to all members of the Putative Class using
all known mailing addresses. The envelope shall have this
information only for the
Return Address:
Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
MULLANEY LAW, LLC
652 Rutledge Ave, Suite A
Charleston, SC 29403
Enclosed, with the Notice and Consent Form, there will be
a self-addressed, postage-paid envelope using the name and
mailing address of Plaintiffs' counsel, as contained in
Section 3 of the Notice, for both the address and return
address.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 5 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ATcbVl at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
MULLANEY LAW, L.L.C.
652 Rutledge Ave., Suite A
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (800) 385-8160
E-marybeth@mullaneylaw.net
The Defendants are represented by:
Bob J. Conley, Esq.
Caroline Wrenn Cleveland, Esq.
CLEVELAND & CONLEY, L.L.C.
One Seventy-One Church Street, Suite 310
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 577-9626
E-mail: ccleveland@clevelandlaborlaw.com
bconley@clevelandlaborlaw.com
BIODELIVERY SCIENCES: Drachman Class Suit in Delaware Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled,
Drachman v. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 2019-0728-AGB (Del. Ch.).
On September 11, 2019, two purported stockholders of the Company
filed a putative class action against the Company and our directors
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned
Drachman v. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 2019-0728-AGB (Del. Ch.).
The Complaint alleged that the Amendments did not receive the
requisite vote of stockholders at the 2018 Annual Meeting and
asserted claims for violation of the Delaware General Corporation
Law, breach of fiduciary duties, and declaratory judgment.
The Complaint sought, inter alia, a declaration that the Amendments
were not validly approved and invalidation of the Amendments,
including altering the one-year terms of all directors duly elected
at the 2018 and 2019 Annual Meetings to three-year terms.
The Complaint also sought costs and disbursements, including
attorneys' fees.
On July 1, 2020, the Company filed their response to the Complaint
and denied the claims asserted therein.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., a specialty
pharmaceutical company, engages in the development and
commercialization of pharmaceutical products in the United States
and internationally. It was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in
Raleigh, North Carolina.
BLUE APRON: Settlement in IPO Related Suit Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the settlement in the
consolidated putative class action suit related to the company's
initial public offering (IPO) has been granted final approval.
The Company was subject to a consolidated putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York alleging federal securities law violations in connection with
the Company's initial public offering (IPO).
The amended complaint alleged that the Company and certain current
and former officers and directors made material misstatements or
omissions in the Company's registration statement and prospectus
that caused the stock price to drop.
Pursuant to a stipulated schedule entered by the parties,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May
21, 2018.
Plaintiffs filed a response on July 12, 2018 and defendants filed a
reply on August 13, 2018. On April 22, 2020, the Court entered an
order (i) denying the motion to dismiss insofar as Plaintiffs'
allegations pertained to certain of the disclosures in the
registration statement and prospectus claimed by plaintiff, and
(ii) narrowing the factual issues in the case.
On August 11, 2020, the parties held a mediation after which they
entered into a memorandum of understanding on August 14, 2020
regarding a proposed settlement. Discovery has been stayed since
August 14, 2020.
The Company entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement
to resolve the class action litigation on October 28, 2020, which
was subsequently amended on November 12, 2020.
Under the terms of the settlement, a payment of $13.3 million is to
be made by the Company and/or its insurers in exchange for the
release of claims against the defendants and other released parties
by the lead plaintiff and all settlement class members and for the
dismissal of the action with prejudice.
The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
February 1, 2021 and the Company paid $1.0 million of the
settlement amount into escrow, with the remaining $12.3 million
balance of the settlement funded by the Company's insurers.
The Company's contribution to the settlement represented the
portion of its insurance retention amount, less the $1.0 million
which had been paid by the Company as of December 31, 2020 to cover
legal fees relating to this case and the related cases described
below, as well as the settlement of the state court action
described below. The court granted final approval of the settlement
on May 10, 2021, and the deadline to appeal the court's final
approval order has passed.
The Company was also subject to two state putative class action
lawsuits alleging federal securities law violations in connection
with the IPO, which were substantially similar to the
above-referenced federal court action.
One of the state court action was originally filed in the New York
Supreme Court, but was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs on
September 15, 2020 and subsequently re-filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on October 2, 2020.
On December 2, 2020, the Company settled this lawsuit, which did
not have a material impact on the Company's Consolidated Financial
Statements. The second state lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed on
May 12, 2021.
Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates direct-to-consumer platform that
delivers original recipes, and fresh and seasonal ingredients. It
also operates Blue Apron Market, an e-commerce marketplace that
provides cooking tools, utensils, and pantry items. Blue Apron
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.
BOOKING HOLDINGS: German Hotel Association Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Booking Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that a German hotel
association has initiated a class action lawsuit against
Booking.com in Germany on behalf of a group of German hotels that
alleges that the hotels overpaid commissions to Booking.com because
of wide parity terms in the contracts between the hotels and
Booking.com between 2006 and 2015.
Booking.com is pursuing court proceedings in the Netherlands to
declare that the Netherlands is the proper forum for this matter.
Although the Company believes the claim to be without merit and
intends to defend against the claim, if the hotel association were
successful in its litigation and the Company were required to pay
damages, the amount could be significant.
The Company cannot reasonably estimate an amount of potential loss
because there are several unknown variables at this early stage.
Booking Holdings Inc. is an American travel technology company
organized in Delaware and based in Norwalk, Connecticut, that owns
and operates several travel fare aggregators and travel fare
metasearch engines including namesake and flagship Booking.com,
Priceline.com, Agoda.com, Kayak.com, Cheapflights, Rentalcars.com,
Momondo, and OpenTable. The company is based in Norwalk,
Connecticut.
CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces Class Action Over Sugar Free Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that a class-action lawsuit -- filed on behalf of consumers
in California, New York, and nationwide -- alleges that Campbell
Soup Company and Pepperidge Farm, Inc.'s Goldfish-brand snack
products (the "Goldfish Products") are misleadingly labeled.
Plaintiffs allege that the Goldfish products do not comply with 21
C.F.R. § 101.60 ("Nutrient content claims for the calorie content
of foods") because they claim "0g Sugars" or "0g Total Sugars"
(i.e, sugar free claims) without disclosing that they are "not a
low calorie food," "not a reduced calorie food," or "not for weight
control." Plaintiffs further allege that the sugar free claims
misled consumers into thinking they were purchasing low calorie
foods and gave Defendants a competitive advantage over
similarly-positioned products in the market.
Among other criteria, Section 101.60 requires that foods claiming
to be "sugar free," "free of sugar," "no sugar," "zero sugar,"
"without sugar," "sugarless," "trivial source of sugar,"
"negligible source of sugar," or "dietarily insignificant source of
sugar" contain less than 0.5 g sugar per serving and be labeled
with a "not a reduced calorie food," "not a low calorie food, " or
"not for weight control" disclaimer if the foods do not also meet
the "low calorie" or "reduced calorie" criteria. The regulation
does not reference the quantitative claims "0g Sugars" or "0g Total
Sugars," although Plaintiffs allege that they are substantively
identical to the claims delineated in the regulation.
We remind readers that there is no private right to enforce FDA's
labeling regulations and that a violation of a labeling regulation
is not per se proof of consumer deception. The court instead must
decide whether a "reasonable consumer" would be deceived by the
labeling. In recent examples like the Champion Petfoods Case and
Manuka Honey Case, the courts have required extrinsic evidence of
consumer deception and have considered the full range of
information available to the consumer, thus making it more
difficult for plaintiffs to make this showing. [GN]
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Chinchilla Putative Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Carriage Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit entitled, Chinchilla v.
Carriage Services, Inc., et al., Superior Court of California, San
Joaquin County, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0004661.
On May 19, 2021, a putative class action against the Company and
several of the company's subsidiaries was filed.
Plaintiff, a former employee, seeks monetary damages on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated current and former non-exempt
employees.
Plaintiff claims that the Company failed to, among other things,
pay minimum wages, provide meal and rest breaks, pay overtime,
provide accurately itemized wage statements, reimburse employees
for business expenses, and provide wages when due.
Carriage said, "At June 30, 2021, we are unable to reasonably
estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss, if any."
Carriage Services, Inc., provides funeral and cemetery services and
merchandise in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Funeral Home Operations and Cemetery Operations. The Company was
founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.
CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Medel Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cawley & Bergmann,
LLC. The case is styled as Yeceni Medel, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Cawley & Bergmann, LLC, Case No.
3:21-cv-15314-AET-DEA (D.N.J., Aug. 14, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Cawley & Bergmann, LLC -- https://www.cawleyandbergmann.com/ -- is
a debt collection company specializing in the recovery of
delinquent consumer debt.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Phone: (973) 227-5900
Fax: (973) 244-0019
Email: jkj@legaljones.com
CHARLOTTE, NC: Court Dismisses Driver Privacy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kristin L. Bryan, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that a federal court
dismissed a federal driver privacy class action, granting the
Defendant judgment on the pleadings. Hensley v. Order City of
Charlotte, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146752 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 4, 2021).
The court's ruling was based primarily on: (1) language in a
contract that required parties to use driver data subject to the
obligations of federal law and (2) legal issues previously
addressed in Gaston v. Lexisnexis Risk Solutions, another driver
privacy class action in the same jurisdiction that was resolved
earlier this year. 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12872 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 25,
2021).
First, let's take a look at the (alleged) facts. As readers may
recall from our prior coverage of Gaston v. Lexisnexis Risk
Solutions, North Carolina law enforcement officers are required to
document reportable vehicle crashes on a standard form promulgated
by the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles ("NCDMV") known
as a DMV-349. When a DMV-349 has been completed by a N.C. law
enforcement officer, it usually contains the following personal
information about the drivers involved in the accident: (1) name,
(2) date of birth, (3) gender, (4) residence address, and (5) NCDMV
driver's license number.
The Plaintiff in Hensley was involved in a motorcycle accident in
North Carolina in 2017. The resulting DMV-349 prepared by the
responding officer purportedly contained Plaintiff's personal
information including his address; his date of birth; his North
Carolina driver's license number; and his telephone number.
Plaintiff alleged that since at least 2007 the city of Charlotte,
North Carolina has placed unredacted copies of each DMV-349
"recently received" on the front desk of its records division so
that the forms are available to the public. Although Plaintiff
alleged that individuals go to the records division to review these
DMV-349 reports for various purposes, including marketing, he
claimed that "the City does not maintain any log or record
identifying which accident reports have been looked at, the persons
or entities that have reviewed any accident reports or the purpose
for which any report was reviewed." Plaintiff additionally alleged
that Charlotte contracted with PoliceReports US ("PRUS"), a company
purchased by LexisNexis Claims Solutions ("LexisNexis"), to make
DMV-349s available to the public on a LexisNexis website.
Plaintiff filed suit under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act
("DPPA"), asserting that Charlotte made copies of his accident
report containing his personal information available to the public
at both the records division and through the LexisNexis website in
violation of the DPPA. Plaintiff in Hensley sought to represent a
putative class consisting of similarly situated individuals.
The DPPA is a federal statute governing the sale and resale of
certain "personal information" from motor vehicle records.
Following the well-publicized murder of an actress in 1989 by a
stalker (who had obtained her unlisted home address from a state
DMV), the DPPA was enacted for the purpose of protecting drivers
from violent crime. The DPPA was also intended to curb certain
direct marketing and solicitation practices. The statute contains a
private right of action.
The court relying on Gaston found that Plaintiff's DPPA claim was
deficient as a matter of law.
First, in regards to Plaintiff's PRUS/LexisNexis allegations, the
court noted that in Gaston it ruled that the city of Charlotte and
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department ("CMPD") did not violate
the DPPA by knowingly disclosing DPPA protected personal
information to PRUS/LexisNexis. This was on the basis that the
contract between the city of Charlotte and PRUS/LexisNexis
explicitly required that PRUS/LexisNexis use the information
"subject to the obligations of federal law." (emphasis in
original). To put it otherwise, compliance with the federal DPPA
was a required term of the parties' agreement. As such, the court
found that "Plaintiff's allegations that he received marketing
solicitations from law firms as a result of the improper disclosure
of his personal information on the PRUS/LexisNexis website does not
plausibly state a DPPA claim." (emphasis supplied).
Nor did Plaintiff's allegations concerning the potential disclosure
of his accident report from the CMPD records division counter fare
any better. This was because, the court held, "there is admittedly
no record of which accident reports were viewed by any member of
the public nor has Plaintiff specifically alleged -- in the
relevant pleadings -- that he received a solicitation as a result
of the disclosure of DPPA protected personal information from that
physical location rather than the PRUS/LexisNexis website."
(emphasis in original).
The court held that Plaintiff's complaint did not plausibly plead a
cognizable violation of the DPPA and granted Defendant judgment on
the pleadings. The case was dismissed.
However, expect more cases like this going forward. Because the
DPPA has a private right of action with liquidated damages, it has
been a recent target of plaintiffs' attorneys seeking to bring
novel theories of liability against entities that handle driver
license data in pursuit of a large cash payout. Not to worry, CPW
will be there to keep you informed of these developments as they
occur. Stay tuned. [GN]
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Churchill Capital Corp IV
('Churchill' or the 'Company') (NYSE:CCIV) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Churchill securities between January 11, 2021 and February
22, 2021, both dates inclusive (the 'Class Period'). Such investors
are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/cciv.
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 materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (1) Lucid was not prepared to deliver vehicles by
spring of 2021; (2) Lucid was projecting a production of 557
vehicles in 2021 instead of the 6,000 vehicles touted in the run-up
to the merger with Churchill; and (3) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
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/cciv 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 in
Churchill you have until August 30, 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]
CLARK COUNTY, NV: Allison Must File Individual Suit by Sept. 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RONALD J. ALLISON, Plaintiff v. CLARK COUNTY COURTS,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01395-JAD-NJK (D. Nev.),
Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada gives the Plaintiff until Sept. 28, 2021, to
submit a complaint on his own behalf to the Court in compliance
with LSR 2-1.
On July 26, 2021, the Plaintiff, an inmate currently located at
Southern Adult Mental Health Services, submitted a document titled
Class Action Lawsuit. He has not submitted an application to
proceed in forma pauperis or paid the full $402 filing fee in the
matter.
Judge Koppe notes that the Plaintiff has titled his document at
Docket No. 1-1 Class Action Lawsuit. However, a person who is not
represented by an attorney may not file a class action lawsuit. In
addition, the Plaintiff's document at Docket No. 1-1 does not
comply with Local Special Rule 2-1. Under LSR 2-1, a civil rights
complaint filed by a person who is not represented by an attorney
must be submitted on the form provided by the Court or must be
legible and contain substantially all the information called for by
the court's form.
As such, the Judge grants the Plaintiff a one-time extension until
Sept. 28, 2021, to submit a complaint on his own behalf to the
Court in compliance with LSR 2-1. She also provides him a copy of
the Court's Section 1983 complaint form with instructions.
In addition, Judge Koppe also grants the Plaintiff a one-time
extension to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma
pauperis containing all three of the required documents, or in the
alternative, pay the full $402 filing fee for the action by Sept.
28, 2021. Absent unusual circumstances, she will not grant any
further extensions of time.
If the Plaintiff does not file a fully complete application to
proceed in forma pauperis with all three required documents or pay
the full $402 filing fee by Sept. 28, 2021, the case will be
subject to dismissal without prejudice for the Plaintiff to file a
new case with the Court when he has all three of the documents
needed to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma
pauperis or pays the full $402 filing fee.
A dismissal without prejudice means the Plaintiff does not give up
the right to refile the case with the Court, under a new case
number, when he has all three documents needed to submit with an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. Alternatively, the
Plaintiff may choose not to file an application to proceed in forma
pauperis and instead pay the full filing fee of $402 by Sept. 28,
2021 to proceed with the case.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Koppe orders the Clerk of the
Court to send to the Plaintiff the approved form for filing a
Section 1983 complaint, instructions for the same, and a copy of
his original document at Docket No. 1-1.
The Plaintiff will have until Sept. 28, 2021, to submit a complaint
on his own behalf to the Court in compliance with LSR 2-1. If the
Plaintiff does not file a complaint in compliance with LSR 2-1 by
Sept. 28, 2021, the case will be subject to dismissal without
prejudice for him to refile the case with the Court, under a new
case number, when he is able to file a complaint in compliance with
LSR 2-1.
The Clerk of the Court will send the Plaintiff the approved form
application to proceed in forma pauperis by an inmate, as well as
the document entitled information and instructions for filing an in
forma pauperis application.
By Sept. 28, 2021, the Plaintiff will either pay the full $402
filing fee for a civil action (which includes the $350 filing fee
and the $52 administrative fee) or file with the Court: (1) a
completed Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis for Inmate on
the Court's approved form (i.e. pages 1 through 3 of the form with
the inmate's two signatures on page 3); (2) a Financial Certificate
properly signed by both the inmate and a prison or jail official
(i.e. page 4 of the Court's approved form); and (3) a copy of the
inmate's prison or jail trust fund account statement for the
previous six-month period.
If the Plaintiff does not file a fully complete an application to
proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full
$402 filing fee for a civil action by Sept. 28, 2021, the case will
be subject to dismissal without prejudice for the Plaintiff to
refile the case with the Court, under a new case number, when the
Plaintiff has all three documents needed to file a complete
application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the full $402
filing fee.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/47kmfu67 from Leagle.com.
CLEVELAND, OH: Water Department Sued Over Unfair Billing Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Regan, writing for News 5, reports that at the same time the
Cleveland Water Department is facing a federal class action lawsuit
over its billing practices, the embattled agency is now accused of
trying to squeeze thousands of dollars from the estate of a
deceased customer.
A lawsuit filed in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court alleges the
water department has placed a tax lien on the home of a deceased
customer to collect $9,540.72 in disputed water and sewer bills.
Barbara McFarquhar died in 2016 at the age of 82, just months after
the water department first began threatening to shut off her water,
claiming she failed to pay enormous water bills for water that her
family says was never used.
McFarquhar, a stroke victim, was confined to her bed for 20 years
and the family says there is no way she could possibly have used
excessive water.
The family also insists there were no leaks.
The lawsuit was filed by her daughter, Jacqueline McFarguhar, after
spending the lasts five years unsuccessfully attempting to resolve
the issue.
An exclusive 5 On Your Side investigation first uncovered
widespread questions about the water department's billing practices
in 2015 and prompted a federal class-action lawsuit in 2019 brought
by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
The class-action lawsuit alleges the water department unfairly
discriminates against customers and violates federal and state laws
through the use of water tax liens on homes to collect unpaid,
disputed water bills.
The water department has declined to comment on the case because it
is currently in litigation.
Meanwhile, water department's lawyers have filed a motion in court
asking the case be dismissed if McFarquhar does not hire an
attorney to represent her in a reasonable time period.
Water department lawyers say McFarquhar is prohibited from arguing
the case under Ohio law. [GN]
CLIPPER MAGAZINE: Loftus Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clipper Magazine LLC,
et al. The case is styled as William Loftus, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Clipper Magazine LLC,
Does 1 through 10, inclusive and each of them, Case No.
2:21-cv-06585 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 13, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Clipper Magazine -- https://clippermagazine.com/ -- is America's
most trusted local advertising & marketing solutions provider
offering a full line of outstanding digital and print options.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
COINBASE GLOBAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 11 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.
COIN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/coinbase-global-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18439&wire=1
PLL Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/piedmont-lithium-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18439&wire=1
AHCO Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/adapthealth-corp-f-k-a-dfb-healthcare-acquisitions-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=18439&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Coinbase Global, Inc. (NASDAQ:COIN)
This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Coinbase Class A common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement
and prospectus for the resale of up to 114,850,769 shares of its
Class A common stock, whereby Coinbase began trading as a public
company on or around April 14, 2021.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 20, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/coinbase-global-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18439&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, (1) the Company required a
sizeable cash injection; (2) the Company's platform was susceptible
to service-level disruptions, which were increasingly likely to
occur as the Company scaled its services to a larger user base; and
(3) as a result of the foregoing Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Piedmont Lithium Inc. (NASDAQ:PLL)
PLL Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 16, 2018 -
July 19, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/piedmont-lithium-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18439&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Piedmont
Lithium Inc. 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.
AdaptHealth Corp. f/k/a DFB Healthcare Acquisitions Corp.
(NASDAQ:AHCO)
AHCO Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 11,
2019 - July 16, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 27, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/adapthealth-corp-f-k-a-dfb-healthcare-acquisitions-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=18439&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
AdaptHealth Corp. f/k/a DFB Healthcare Acquisitions Corp. made
materially 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 Securities
and Exchange Commission 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.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
CONCHO RESOURCES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of September 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming September 28, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Concho Resources Inc. ("Concho" or
the "Company") (NYSE: CXO) common stock between February 21, 2018
and July 31, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Concho 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/concho-resources-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.
In 2018, Concho planned and constructed the Dominator Project
("Dominator") located in the Permian Basin. It consisted of 23
wells.
On July 31, 2019, Concho revealed the wells at Dominator were
spaced "too tight," leading the Company to reduce its active rig
count to 18 (down from 33 in the first quarter of 2019) to avoid
overshooting budgets.
On this news, Concho's stock price fell 22% per share on August 1,
2019, thereby injuring investors.
ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) acquired Concho in January 2021 and is
also named as a defendant in the complaint.
The complaint filed in this class action 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 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, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Concho common stock during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than September
28, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]
CONSOL ENERGY: Casey-Fitzwater Consolidated Class Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend the "Casey-Fitzwater" consolidated class action suit.
A class action lawsuit was filed on August 23, 2017 on behalf of
two nonunion retired coal miners against Consolidation Coal Company
("CCC"), CONSOL of Kentucky Inc. ("COK"), CONSOL Buchanan Mining
Co., LLC and Kurt Salvatori in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia alleging ERISA violations in the
termination of retiree health care benefits.
Filed by the same lawyers who filed the Fitzwater litigation, and
raising nearly identical claims, the Plaintiffs contend they relied
to their detriment on oral promises of "lifetime health benefits"
allegedly made by various members of management during Plaintiffs'
employment and that they were not provided with copies of Summary
Plan Documents clearly reserving to the Company the right to modify
or terminate the Retiree Health and Welfare Plan.
Plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated for
them and their dependents and seek to represent a class of all
nonunion retirees of any subsidiary of the Company's former parent
that operated or employed individuals in McDowell or Mercer
Counties, West Virginia, or Buchanan or Tazewell Counties, Virginia
whose retiree welfare benefits were terminated.
On December 1, 2017, the trial court judge in Fitzwater signed an
order to consolidate Fitzwater with Casey.
The Casey complaint was amended on March 1, 2018 to add new
plaintiffs, add defendant CONSOL Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC and
eliminate defendant CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC in an attempt
to expand the class of retirees.
On October 15, 2019, Plaintiffs' supplemental motion for class
certification was denied on all counts. On July 15, 2020,
Plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal with the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals on the Order denying class certification. The
Fourth Circuit denied Plaintiffs' appeal on August 14, 2020.
On October 1, 2020, the District Court entered a pretrial order
setting the trial date, which was held in February 2021.
No ruling has been issued by the judge.
The Company believes it has a meritorious defense and intends to
vigorously defend this suit.
CONSOL Energy Inc. produces and exports bituminous coal. It owns
and operates its mining operations in the Northern Appalachian
Basin. The company owns and operates the Pennsylvania Mining
Complex (PAMC), which comprises three underground mines, including
Bailey, Enlow Fork, and Harvey; and CONSOL Marine Terminal located
in the port of Baltimore. CONSOL Energy Inc. was founded in 1864
and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
CREDIT.COM INC: Bid to Strike Class Claims in Buell TCPA Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANGELA BUELL, Plaintiff v. CREDIT.COM, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-01055-KAW (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge
Kandis A. Westmore of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied the Defendant's motion to strike
Plaintiff Buell's class allegations.
The decision is issued on the grounds that the recent U.S. Supreme
Court decision in Barr v. American Association of Political
Consultants, Inc., 140 S.Ct. 2335 (2020) ("AAPC"), renders the
robocall restriction unconstitutional for the five-year period
preceding the decision, thereby, significantly narrowing the
putative class period.
On Feb. 11, 2021, Plaintiff Buell filed a class action complaint
against Defendant Credit.com, alleging that it violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227,
by making unsolicited, pre-recorded telemarketing calls. The
Defendant provides credit counseling services.
The Plaintiff has been on the National Do Not Call Registry since
April 2013, and alleges that the Defendant called her personal cell
phone three times in February 2021 and delivered three identical
pre-recorded voicemails. She asserts that she did not consent to
receive pre-recorded or telemarketing calls and was not seeking
services from the Defendant or its partners.
The Plaintiff seeks class certification pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of two Classes: the
Pre-recorded No Consent Class and the Do Not Call Registry Class.
Only the putative Pre-recorded No Consent Class is the subject of
Defendant's motion:
Pre-recorded No Consent Class:
"All persons in the United States who from four years prior
to the filing of this action through trial (1) Defendant
(or an agent acting on behalf of Defendant) called (2)
using a pre-recorded voice message, and (3) for whom the
Defendant claim (a) they obtained prior express written
consent in the same manner as Defendant claims they
supposedly obtained prior express written consent to call
Plaintiff, or (b) they obtained the person's number in the
same manner as Defendant obtained Plaintiff's number."
On April 19, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to strike the class
allegations that fall within the period that the TCPA included a
government-debt exception. On May 3, 2021, the Plaintiff filed an
opposition. On May 10, 2021, the Defendant filed a reply.
Discussion
The Defendant moves to strike the class allegation of the
"Pre-recorded No Consent Class" on the grounds that the class
definition is overbroad in light of the United States Supreme
Court's ruling in AAPC. In AAPC, the Supreme Court held that the
government-debt exception to the robocall restriction, enacted in
November 2015, violated the First Amendment as a content-based
restriction on speech. As a result of the finding in AAPC, the
Defendant is asking the Court to narrow the Pre-recorded No Consent
class period to the period beginning on July 6, 2020, the date of
decision, and continuing through trial.
AAPC and the constitutionality of the Government-Debt Exception
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the robocall
restriction with the government-debt exception was
unconstitutional, and if so, whether to invalidate the entire 1991
robocall restriction, or invalidate and sever the exception from
the rest of the statute. First, and without a majority opinion, six
members of the Supreme Court found that the exception was a
content-based restriction in violation of the First Amendment
because it favored debt-collection speech over political speech.
i. Severability
Having found the government-debt exception unconstitutional, the
Supreme Court turned to whether the offending provision could be
severed from the statute. Ultimately, a plurality (seven Members of
the Court) determined that severability was appropriate because the
remainder of the general robocall restriction was capable of being
fully operative as a law, because it had functioned independently
in the years prior to the addition of the government-debt
exception.
Since the government-debt exception was a relatively narrow
exception to the broad robocall restriction, and severing it would
not raise any other constitutional problems, the same plurality
determined that severance cured the unequal treatment under the
First Amendment, thereby preserving the robocall restriction. In
closing the severability discussion, Justice Kavanaugh, joined by
Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, explicitly absolved
government-debt collectors of liability for robocalls made during
that time, but also stated that liability would still attach for
anyone who violated the general robocall restriction between 2015
and 2020. Since a majority did not sign on to Judge Kavanaugh's
entire opinion, there is disagreement among district courts as to
whether footnote 12 is binding precedent or merely persuasive.
ii. Whether severance is retroactive or prospective
The Defendant argues that the inclusion of the unconstitutional
government-debt exception renders the entire robocall restriction
unconstitutional from its amendment in 2015 until the Supreme Court
severed the exception in 2020. As a result, it contends that the
general robocall exception can only be enforced prospectively.
In opposition, the Plaintiff argues that, despite footnote 12 being
contained in the three-Justice plurality opinion, seven Justices
concurred in the severability discussion rendering the footnote
binding.
Judge Westmore agrees with the Plaintiff. She is persuaded by the
district court's analysis in McCurley v. Royal Sea Cruises, Inc.,
No. 17-cv-00986-BAS-AGS, 2021 WL 288164, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 28,
2021), where the court held that footnote 12 was not dicta because
it was joined by six other Justices. She notes that only Justices
Gorsuch and Thomas dissented on the issue of severability.
Furthermore, as the McCurley court noted, Justices Breyer,
Ginsburg, and Kagan "would not have held the 2015 amendment to be
unconstitutional at all, and they certainly agreed Defendant could
be held liable."
Finally, the Judge is not persuaded by the Defendant's reliance on
reasy v. Charter Commc'ns., Inc., 489 F.Supp.3d 499, 503 (E.D. La.
2020, where the district court reasoned that the exception
fundamentally altered the entire statute and required that it be
enforced prospectively. In Creasy, the court held that the entire
robocall restriction was void because "it itself was repugnant to
the Constitution before the Supreme Court restored it to
constitutional health in AAPC."
The Judge, however, is unpersuaded by this rationale because the
majority of sitting justices found it proper "to sever the 2015
government-debt exception and leave in place the longstanding
robocall restriction." The Defendant's reliance on Hussain v.
Sullivan Buick-Cadillac-GMC Truck, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-38-Oc-30PRL,
2020 WL 7346536, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 11, 2020), is similarly
misplaced. In that case, the court found that "the 2015 amendment,
adding the government-debt exception, changed an otherwise valid
statute to an unconstitutional content-based restriction." The
Hussain court's determination would be persuasive if the Supreme
Court had struck down the entire 1991 robocall restriction.
Instead, the Supreme Court only invalidated the 2015
government-debt exception.
Accordingly, Judge Westmore finds that the TCPA's general robocall
restriction remained intact from 1991 onward, which includes the
entire putative class period, and requires that the pending motion
to strike be denied.
Conclusion
For the reasons she set forth, Judge Westmore denied the
Defendant's motion to strike. The Defendant will file an answer
within 14 days of the Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yh7yvchc from Leagle.com.
CUMULUS MEDIA: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Over 401(k) Plan Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulus Media Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company's motion to
dismiss the putative class action suit related to 401(k) Plan, is
pending.
On February 24, 2020, two individual plaintiffs filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia alleging claims regarding the
Cumulus Media Inc. 401(k) Plan.
The case alleges that the Company breached its fiduciary duties
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)
in the oversight of the Plan, principally by selecting and
retaining certain investment options despite their higher fees and
costs than other available investment options, causing participants
in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees, and by failing to
monitor other fiduciaries.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of
Plan participants from February 24, 2014 through the date of any
judgment.
On May 28, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On December 17, 2020 the Court entered an order
dismissing one of the individual plaintiffs and all claims against
the Company except those that arose on or after February 24, 2019
(i.e., one year prior to the filing of the Complaint).
On March 24, 2021, the Company filed a motion seeking dismissal of
all remaining claims. The Company intends to continue to defend the
case vigorously.
Cumulus said, "The Company is currently unable to reasonably
estimate what effect the ultimate outcome might have, if any, on
its financial position, results of operations or cash flows."
Cumulus Media Inc., an audio-first media and entertainment company,
owns and operates radio stations in the United States. It operates
through two segments, Cumulus Radio Station Group and Westwood One.
The company offers content through approximately 428
owned-and-operated stations in 87 United States media markets; and
approximately 8,000 broadcast radio stations affiliates and various
digital channels. Cumulus Media Inc. was incorporated in 2018 and
is based in Atlanta, Georgia.
DAVITA INC: Faces Pena Putative Class Suit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
DaVita Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the company faces a putative class action
suit entitled, Pena v. Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC, et al.
On July 14, 2021, an indictment was returned by a grand jury in the
U.S. District Court, District of Colorado against the Company and
its former chief executive officer in the matter of U.S. v. DaVita
Inc., et al.
The two count indictment alleges that purported agreements entered
into by its former chief executive officer not to solicit
senior-level employees violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
On July 16, 2021, a former DaVita employee filed a putative class
action complaint in the matter of Pena v. Surgical Care Affiliates,
LLC, et al. in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Illinois based on the allegations in the matter of U.S. v. DaVita
Inc., et al.
The complaint seeks to bring an action on behalf of the defendant
and similarly situated individuals, including without limitation
those employed by the Company between February 1, 2012 through June
30, 2019 as senior-level employees.
The Company disputes the allegations in the indictment and the
class action complaint, as well as the asserted violations of the
Sherman Act, and intends to defend these actions accordingly.
DaVita Inc. provides kidney dialysis services for patients
suffering from chronic kidney failure or end stage renal disease
(ESRD). The company operates kidney dialysis centers and provides
related lab services in outpatient dialysis centers. The company
was formerly known as DaVita HealthCare Partners Inc. and changed
its name to DaVita Inc. in September 2016. DaVita Inc. was founded
in 1994 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.
EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Court Approves Olenik Settlement Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
Earthstone Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the Court approved the
Settlement Agreement in Olenik v. Lodzinski et al. and the Company
paid the $3.5 million settlement shortly thereafter.
On June 2, 2017, Nicholas Olenik filed a purported shareholder
class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against Earthstone's Chief Executive Officer, along with other
members of the Board, EnCap Investments L.P. (EnCap), Bold, Bold
Holdings and Oak Valley Resources, LLC. The complaint alleged that
Earthstone's directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the contribution agreement dated as of November 7,
2016 and as amended on March 21, 2017 (the Bold Contribution
Agreement), by and among Earthstone, Energy Holdings, LLC (EEH),
Lynden US, Lynden USA Operating, LLC, Bold Holdings and Bold.
The Plaintiff asserted that the directors negotiated the business
combination pursuant to the Bold Contribution Agreement (the "Bold
Transaction") to benefit EnCap and its affiliates, failed to obtain
adequate consideration for the Earthstone shareholders who were not
affiliated with EnCap or Earthstone management, did not follow an
adequate process in negotiating and approving the Bold Transaction
and made materially misleading or incomplete proxy disclosures in
connection with the Bold Transaction.
The suit sought unspecified damages and purported to assert claims
derivatively on behalf of Earthstone and as a class action on
behalf of all persons who held common stock up to March 13, 2017,
excluding defendants and their affiliates. On July 20, 2018, the
Delaware Court of Chancery granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and entered an order dismissing the action in its entirety
with prejudice. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Delaware
Supreme Court.
On April 5, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Delaware
Court of Chancery's dismissal of the proxy disclosure claims but
reversed the Delaware Court of Chancery's dismissal of the other
claims, holding that the allegations with respect to those claims
were sufficient for pleading purposes.
After engaging in extensive pre-trial discovery, the parties
engaged in a mediation process that resulted in a non-binding
settlement term sheet on September 21, 2020. The term sheet was
translated into a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise,
Settlement and Release Agreement between the parties and was filed
with the Delaware Court of Chancery for approval.
The principal terms of the Settlement Agreement are as follows: (i)
a $3.5 million all-in cash settlement payment (the "Fund") to be
funded by defendants and/or their insurers into an escrow account,
(ii) a bi-lateral complete and full release of all claims against
defendants and plaintiffs, and (iii) that 55% of the Fund (the
derivative payment) be paid to Earthstone to be used as determined
by management, according to their fiduciary duties and business
judgment, 45% of the Fund (the class payment) be paid to members of
the class or current stockholders of Earthstone.
On March 31, 2021, the Court approved the Settlement Agreement and
the Company paid the $3.5 million settlement shortly thereafter.
The insurance carriers immediately reimbursed their agreed upon
allocation of the settlement totaling $2.8 million and in addition,
the Company has received $1.3 million from the derivative portion
of the settlement, which is included as a reduction of Transaction
costs in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for the
six months ended June 30, 2021.
Earthstone Energy, Inc., an independent energy company, engages in
the development and operation of oil and gas properties in the
United States. Earthstone Energy, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is
headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas.
ELI LILLY: Actos-Related Class Suits in Canada Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the lawsuits involving
Actos have been dismissed.
The company was named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd.
and Takeda affiliates as a defendant in four purported product
liability class actions in Canada related to Actos, which the
company commercialized with Takeda in Canada until 2009, including
one in Ontario filed December 2011 (Casseres et al. v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et al.), one in Quebec filed
July 2012 (Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly et al.), one in Saskatchewan
filed November 2017 (Weiler v. Takeda Canada Inc. et al.), and one
in Alberta filed January 2013 (Epp v. Takeda Canada Inc. et al.).
In general, plaintiffs in these actions alleged that Actos caused
or contributed to their bladder cancer.
An agreement to settle these actions became effective in May 2021,
and the settlement claims administration process is ongoing.
The lawsuits have been dismissed or discontinued.
Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in
two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health
Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.
ELI LILLY: Continues to Defend Litigation Over Insulin Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend several class action suits related to the company's insulin
products.
In December 2017, the company, along with Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC
and Novo Nordisk, Inc. were named as defendants in a consolidated
purported class action lawsuit, In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey relating
to insulin pricing seeking damages under various state consumer
protection laws and the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act (federal RICO Act).
Separately, in February 2018, the company, along with Sanofi and
Novo Nordisk, were named as defendants in MSP Recovery Claims,
Series, LLC et al. v. Sanofi Aventis U.S. LLC et al., in the same
court, seeking damages under various state consumer protection
laws, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and the federal RICO
Act.
In both In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation and the MSP Recovery
Claims litigation, the court dismissed claims under the federal
RICO Act and certain state laws.
In April 2021, the plaintiffs in In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation
amended their complaint to allege additional state law claims for
civil conspiracy and violations of state RICO statutes.
Also, filed in the same court in November 2020, the company, along
with Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, CVS, Express Scripts, and Optum, have
been sued in a purported class action, FWK Holdings, LLC v. Novo
Nordisk Inc., et al., for alleged violations of the federal RICO
Act as well as the New Jersey RICO Act and antitrust law. That same
group of defendants, along with Medco Health and United Health
Group, also have been sued in other purported class actions in the
same court, Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et
al. and Value Drug Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al. both initiated in
March 2020, for alleged violations of the federal RICO Act.
In September 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate FWK Holdings, LLC
v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc. v.
Eli Lilly & Co. et al., and Value Drug Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et
al.
In July 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey dismissed the three antitrust claims alleged by plaintiffs
in the consolidated litigation and denied dismissal of the RICO
claims.
Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in
two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health
Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.
ELI LILLY: Faces Mosaic Health Purported Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company faces a
purported class action suit initiated by Mosaic Health, Inc.
In July 2021, the company, along with Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC,
Novo Nordisk Inc., and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, were named
as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York by Mosaic
Health, Inc. alleging antitrust and unjust enrichment claims
related to the defendants' 340B distribution programs.
Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in
two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health
Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.
EPIC AIRCRAFT: Hanney Files Suit in D. Oregon
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Epic Aircraft, LLC.
The case is styled as Bruno Hanney, Paul Taylor, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Epic Aircraft, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 6:21-cv-01199-MK (D.
Ore., Aug. 13, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract Actions for Breach
of Contract.
Epic Aircraft -- http://www.epicaircraft.com/-- is a general
aviation aircraft manufacturer headquartered in Bend, Oregon and
owned by the Russian company S7 Technics.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alan J. Leiman, Esq.
LEIMAN LAW, P.C.
PO Box 5383
Eugene, OR 97405
Phone: (541) 345-2376
Email: alan@leimanlaw.com
EVERI HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Oct. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everi Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the settlement final
hearing in Geraldine Donahue, et. al. v. Everi FinTech, et. al., is
set for October 4, 2021
Geraldine Donahue, et. al. v. Everi FinTech, et. al. is a putative
class action matter filed on December 12, 2018, in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois County Division, Chancery Division.
The original defendant was dismissed and the Company was
substituted as the defendant on April 22, 2019. Plaintiff, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, alleges that Everi
FinTech and the Company (i) have violated certain provisions of
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) by their failure,
as agent to the original defendant, to properly truncate patron
credit card numbers when printing financial access receipts as
required under FACTA, and (ii) have been unjustly enriched through
the charging of service fees for transactions conducted at the
original defendant's facilities.
Plaintiff sought an award of statutory damages, attorney's fees,
and costs.
The parties settled this matter on a nationwide class basis. The
settlement has since received final approval from the court, and
Everi has paid all funds required pursuant to the settlement.
Distributions to class members are in process, and a final hearing
is set for October 4, 2021, to report to the court on the
distribution metrics and determine what remaining unclaimed funds,
if any, may be distributed to a nonprofit charitable organization
as necessary.
Everi Holdings Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2004, is a holding
company. The Company operates through subsidiaries, including Everi
Games Holding Inc. and Everi Payments Inc. The Company operates
through two segments: Games and FinTech. The Company provides video
and mechanical reel gaming content and technology solutions,
integrated gaming payments solutions, and compliance and efficiency
software. The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.
EVOQUA WATER: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Nov. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the final settlement
approval hearing in the class action suit entitled, In re Evoqua
Water Technologies Corp. Securities Litigation, is set for
November 1, 2021.
In November 2018, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
class action lawsuit, captioned McWilliams v. Evoqua Water
Technologies Corp., Case No. 1:18-CV-10320, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that
the Company and senior management violated federal securities laws
by issuing false, misleading, and/or omissive disclosures in the
period leading up to the Company's October 30, 2018 announcement
of, among other things, (a) preliminary results for the full-year
fiscal 2018 that were below previous expectations and (b) a
transition from a three-segment structure to a two-segment
operating model.
In January 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel and re-captioned the action as In re Evoqua Water
Technologies Corp. Securities Litigation.
In March 2019, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
asserted claims pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, members of the
Company's board of directors, senior management, a former
executive, AEA, and the underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering (IPO) and secondary public offering.
The amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing false, misleading, and/or omissive
disclosures concerning the Company's integration of acquired
companies, the Company's reduction-in-force, and the Company's
financial results of operations.
The lawsuit sought compensatory damages in an unspecified amount
and an award of costs and expenses to the plaintiff and class
counsel. In March 2020, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss a portion of the claims, dismissing all claims predicated
on supposedly intentional misstatements or omissions, which were
brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The claims that remained were those brought under the Securities
Act of 1933. The Company filed an answer denying the material
allegations of the complaint, the parties engaged in discovery, and
lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in December
2020.
On June 1, 2021, following mediation, the parties filed a
stipulation agreeing to settle the Securities Litigation (subject
to Court approval) for $16.65 million, all of which will be covered
by insurance.
On July 8, 2021, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving
the settlement and scheduling a hearing for November 1, 2021 to
determine whether to grant final approval to the settlement and
dismiss the Securities Litigation.
Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. provides a range of water and
wastewater treatment systems and technologies, and mobile and
emergency water supply solutions and services. It operates in three
segments: Industrial, Municipal, and Products. The company has
operations in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the
Netherlands, Germany, Australia, China, and Singapore. Evoqua Water
Technologies Corp. was incorporated in 2013 and is headquartered in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
EXELON CORP: Bid to Dismiss ComEd Customers' Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the consolidated putative class action suit initiated by
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) customers is pending.
Three putative class action lawsuits against ComEd and Exelon were
filed in Illinois state court in the third quarter of 2020 seeking
restitution and compensatory damages on behalf of ComEd customers.
The cases were consolidated into a single action in October of
2020. In November 2020, the Citizens Utility Board (CUB) filed a
motion to intervene in the cases pursuant to an Illinois statute
allowing CUB to intervene as a party or otherwise participate on
behalf of utility consumers in any proceeding which affects the
interest of utility consumers.
On November 23, 2020, the court allowed CUB's intervention, but
denied CUB's request to stay these cases. Plaintiffs subsequently
filed a consolidated complaint, and ComEd and Exelon filed a motion
to dismiss on jurisdictional and substantive grounds on January 11,
2021. Briefing on that motion was completed on March 2, 2021.
The parties agreed, on March 25, 2021, along with the federal court
plaintiffs, to jointly engage in mediation. The parties
participated in a one-day mediation on June 7, 2021 but no
settlement was reached.
Oral argument on the state court motion to dismiss was held on
August 4, 2021. No ruling has yet been issued.
Exelon Corporation is a utility services holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, distributes electricity to
customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Exelon also distributes gas
to customers in the Philadelphia area as well as operates nuclear
power plants in states that include Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
The company is based in Chicago, Illinois.
EXELON CORP: Discovery in ComEd's Lobbying Related Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the parties in the
putative class action suit related to ComEd's lobbying activities,
are currently engaged in discovery.
A putative class action lawsuit against Exelon and certain officers
of Exelon and ComEd was filed in federal court in December 2019
alleging misrepresentations and omissions in Exelon's SEC filings
related to ComEd's lobbying activities and the related
investigations.
The complaint was amended on September 16, 2020, to dismiss two of
the original defendants and add other defendants, including ComEd.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in November 2020.
The court denied the motion in April 2021.
On May 26, 2021, defendants moved the court to certify its order
denying the motion to dismiss for interlocutory appeal. Briefing on
the motion was completed in June 2021 and the motion remains
pending.
While that motion remains pending, the litigation has proceeded
and in May 2021, the parties each filed respective initial
discovery disclosures.
On June 9, 2021, defendants filed their answer and affirmative
defenses to the complaint.
The parties are currently engaged in discovery.
Exelon Corporation is a utility services holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, distributes electricity to
customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Exelon also distributes gas
to customers in the Philadelphia area as well as operates nuclear
power plants in states that include Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
The company is based in Chicago, Illinois.
EXELON CORP: Plaintiffs' Bid for Leave to File Sur-Reply Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the plaintiffs motion
for leave to file a sur-reply to defendants' motion to dismiss, is
pending.
Four putative class action lawsuits against Commonwealth Edison
Company (ComEd) and Exelon were filed in federal court in the third
quarter of 2020 alleging, among other things, civil violations of
federal racketeering laws.
In addition, the Citizens Utility Board (CUB) filed a motion to
intervene in these cases on October 22, 2020 which was granted on
December 23, 2020. In addition, on December 2, 2020, the court
appointed interim lead plaintiffs in the federal cases which
consisted of counsel for three of the four federal cases.
These plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on January 5, 2021.
CUB also filed its own complaint against ComEd only on the same
day.
The remaining federal case, Potter, et al. v. Exelon et al,
differed from the other lawsuits as it named additional individual
defendants not named in the consolidated complaint. The Potter
plaintiffs decided not to move forward with their separate lawsuit
at this time and voluntarily dismissed their complaint without
prejudice on April 5, 2021.
ComEd and Exelon moved to dismiss the consolidated class action
complaint and CUB's complaint on February 4, 2021. Briefing on that
motion was completed on March 22, 2021.
On March 25, 2021, the parties agreed, along with the state court
plaintiffs, to jointly engage in mediation. The parties
participated in a one-day mediation on June 7, 2021 but no
settlement was reached.
On June 14, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
sur-reply to defendants' motion to dismiss, to which ComEd and
Exelon objected.
The court has taken the motion for leave under advisement.
Exelon Corporation is a utility services holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, distributes electricity to
customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Exelon also distributes gas
to customers in the Philadelphia area as well as operates nuclear
power plants in states that include Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
The company is based in Chicago, Illinois.
EXKLUSIV RESORTS: Club Members Appeal S$1,500 Class Action Award
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tay Peck Gek, writing for The Business Times, reports that the
Pines members have appealed against the High Court judgement that
awarded 170 of them a nominal sum of S$1,500 each in their class
action on motoring tycoon Peter Kwee's company over the relocation
of the clubhouse at Stevens Road. [GN]
FREDDIE MAC: Suit Over Preferred Stock Purchase Deal Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3,
2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company continues to defend a consolidated putative class action
suit entitled, In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock
Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations.
A consolidated putative class action ("In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action
Litigations") and two non-class action lawsuits, Arrowood Indemnity
Company v. Fannie Mae and Fairholme Funds v. FHFA, filed by Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders against the company, Federal
Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) as the company's conservator, and
Freddie Mac are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia. The lawsuits challenge the August 2012 amendment to
each company’s senior preferred stock purchase agreement with
Treasury.
Plaintiffs filed amended complaints in all three lawsuits on
November 1, 2017 alleging that the net worth sweep dividend
provisions of the senior preferred stock that were implemented
pursuant to the August 2012 amendments nullified certain of the
shareholders’ rights, particularly the right to receive
dividends.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive
relief, and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.
Plaintiffs in the class action seek to represent several classes of
preferred and/or common shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie
Mac who held stock as of the public announcement of the August 2012
amendments.
On September 28, 2018, the court dismissed all of the plaintiffs’
claims except for their claims for breach of an implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing.
Federal said, "Given the stage of these lawsuits, the substantial
and novel legal questions that remain, and our substantial
defenses, we are currently unable to estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation operates in the secondary
mortgage market in the United States. The company purchases
residential mortgage loans originated by lenders, as well as
invests in mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities. Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation was founded in 1970 and is
headquartered in McLean, Virginia.
GRACIA FASHION: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gracia Fashion Corp.
The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Gracia Fashion Corp., Case No.
1:21-cv-06810 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gracia Fashion -- https://www.graciafashion.com/ -- is a
contemporary women's clothing brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
GREENSKY INC: California Court Partially Stays Beylea Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH BELYEA, et al., Plaintiffs v. GREENSKY,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01693-JSC (N.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California grants in part GreenSky's
motion for stay pending appeal.
The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against GreenSky of
Georgia, LLC and GreenSky, LLC alleging violation of California's
consumer protection, lending and credit services laws in the
Superior Court for the County of San Francisco. GreenSky thereafter
removed the action to the Court under the Class Action Fairness
Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2)(A) ("CAFA").
Less than a week later, GreenSky filed a motion to compel
arbitration which the Court denied finding that had GreenSky failed
to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Belyea agreed to
arbitrate. Ms. Belyea thereafter filed a motion for leave to file
an amended complaint, and following GreenSky's stipulation to
amendment, the first amended complaint (FAC) was filed.
The FAC added Heidi Barnes, Hazel Lodge, and David Ferguson as
representative Plaintiffs. In response to the FAC, GreenSky moved
to dismiss Ms. Barnes' claims and to compel arbitration of Ms.
Belyea, Ms. Lodge, and Mr. Ferguson's claims.
The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss
Ms. Barnes' claims and denied the motions to compel arbitration of
the other Plaintiffs' claims. The Plaintiffs subsequently filed the
now operative Second Amended Complaint which GreenSky has
answered.
GreenSky has appealed the Court's Arbitration Order and moves to
stay proceedings here pending disposition of that appeal. That
motion is fully briefed and Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a
sur-reply to address additional authority cited in GreenSky's reply
brief and correct a citation error in their reply brief, which
GreenSky opposes, is also pending. The Plaintiffs' motion for leave
to file a sur-reply is granted. Following completion of the
briefing on the motion to stay, the Ninth Circuit issued its
decision in Hansen v. LMB Mortg. Servs., Inc., No. 20-15272, ___
F.3d ___, 2021 WL 2386391 (9th Cir. June 11, 2021), vacating and
remanding a district court's order denying a motion to compel
arbitration based on disputes of fact regarding whether the parties
had formed an agreement to arbitrate. The Court requested
supplemental briefing from the parties regarding Hansen's impact on
the Arbitration Order, which is also complete.
Discussion
GreenSky contends that its appeal raises serious legal questions
and that its faces irreparable injury if proceedings in the case
are not stayed pending appeal.
A. Serious Legal Questions
GreenSky identifies the following serious questions as presented by
its appeal: (1) the Court failed to rule on its equitable estoppel
argument; (2) there is a split of opinion among district courts
regarding enforcement of the same arbitration agreement here; (3)
there is a split of opinion among district courts interpreting the
Ninth Circuit's decision in Norcia v. Samsung Telecommunications
Am., LLC, 845 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th Cir. 2017); and (4) the appeal
raises issues of first impression. The Plaintiffs maintain that
none of these factors weigh in favor of a stay.
First, GreenSky's argument that the Court failed to address its
equitable estoppel argument does not raise a serious legal issue.
Judge Corley holds she only needed to reach the equitable estoppel
argument if it found a valid agreement, not where, as in the case,
there were "disputed facts about whether the parties actually
formed an agreement to arbitrate."
Second, that there is a split of authority among district courts --
outside the Ninth Circuit -- about whether the GreenSky arbitration
agreement is valid and enforceable does not raise a serious legal
question given that (1) each case presented distinct facts, and (2)
whether the parties formed an agreement to arbitrate is a question
of state law.
Third, GreenSky's argument that there is a split in authority --
caused by this Court's Arbitration Order -- regarding
interpretation of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Norcia is little
more than a rehash of arguments that the Court considered and
rejected. The Judge says the Court is not bound by other district
court decisions -- it is bound by the Ninth Circuit -- and it
applied the Ninth Circuit's holding in Norcia -- that failing to
opt out of an arbitration agreement is insufficient to constitute
assent to the agreement -- to the facts in the case.
Fourth, GreenSky's argument that the Court decided an issue of
first impression with respect to its finding as to Ms. Lodge's
second loan, fails to raise a serious legal question because again,
as the Plaintiffs point out, the argument is not that the Court
applied the wrong test, but rather an objection to the way the
Court applied the test. This does not give rise to an issue of
first impression.
The Judge, however, finds that GreenSky's appeal raises a serious
legal issue given that the Court applied the incorrect legal
standard to the determination of whether the parties' formed an
agreement to arbitrate. She says, the Court applied a summary
judgment standard to GreenSky's motion to compel arbitration and
found that GreenSky had not shown by an undisputed preponderance of
evidence that the parties formed a valid agreement given the
Plaintiffs' attestations of lack of knowledge and consent. While
neither party addressed the applicable legal standard, where, as in
the case, the party moving to compel had not shown based on
undisputed facts that the parties formed an agreement to arbitrate,
the Court followed other cases in this district and denied the
motion to compel arbitration finding that GreenSky had not met its
burden. However, under Section 4 of the FAA "if the making of the
arbitration agreement or the failure, neglect, or refusal to
perform the same be in issue, the court will proceed summarily to
the trial thereof." Accordingly, if permitted, the Court would
vacate its order denying the motion to compel arbitration, order
the parties to brief the motion under the proper legal standard,
and proceed to trial if necessary to resolve any disputed factual
issues.
The Judge, thus, concludes that the existence of a serious legal
question weighs in favor of stay.
B. Irreparable Harm and Balance of Hardships
GreenSky argues that the time and expense of litigating the case
pending appeal weighs in favor of a stay.
While courts routinely reject such arguments, Judge Corley finds
that the argument is compelling with respect to the claims of those
Plaintiffs subject to the Court's arbitration order given that the
Court concedes that it applied the wrong legal standard. GreenSky
has failed to show any basis for staying Ms. Barnes' claims or
those of other class members who are not subject to arbitration.
Accordingly, the Judge concludes that a partial stay is
appropriate. Given her findings regarding the Court's arbitration
order, the Judge holds that the balance of hardships tips heavily
in GreenSky's favor with respect to continuing to litigate those
claims. However, the balance of hardships tips heavily in the
Plaintiff's favor with respect to Plaintiff Barnes and those
putative class members not subject to the Court's arbitration order
as these claims will be litigated in the Court regardless of the
disposition of the Court's arbitration order.
C. The Public Interest
Finally, Judge Corley considers the public interest. Congress has
expressed a strong public interest in arbitration through the FAA.
The public interest favors staying the claims of those Plaintiffs
and class members subject to the Court's arbitration order. In
contrast, there is no public interest in favor of staying the
claims of Plaintiff Barnes and the other putative class members who
are not subject to the Court's arbitration order.
Conclusion
For the reasons she stated, Judge Corley granted in part GreenSky's
motion for stay pending appeal. The stay is as to Plaintiffs
Elizabeth Beylea, Hazel Lodge, David Ferguson, and any putative
class members for whom there is likewise a dispute as to whether
they entered into a valid arbitration agreement with GreenSky. The
claims of Plaintiff Barnes and other similarly situated putative
class members are not stayed.
As directed at the hearing, the parties are ordered to meet and
confer via videoconference regarding GreenSky's appeal. Judge
Corley sets a further video status conference for Aug. 19, 2021, at
1:30 p.m., to discuss the results of the parties' meet and confer
efforts.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/wsp3nb9j from Leagle.com.
GREYSTAR REAL: Class Cert. Response Filing Extended to Sept. 13
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATRINA WALLACE, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE
PARTNERS, LLC, GREYSTAR GP II, LLC, GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
L.P., GREYSTAR RS NATIONAL, INC., GREYSTAR RS SE, LLC, GREP
SOUTHEAST, LLC; and INNESBROOK APARTMENTS, LLC, d/b/a SOUTHPOINT
GLEN, Case No. 1:18-cv-00501-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Moving
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the time to
file response in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for class
certification and granting an additional 30 days, up to and
including, September 13, 2021, to file their response.
The Plaintiff filed her brief in Motion for Class Certification on
July 23, 2021. Moving Defendants require additional time to file an
appropriate response to Plaintiff's memorandum.
Greystar is an international real estate developer and manager
based in the United States. As of April 2019, Greystar had $32
billion in gross assets under management. As of February 2019,
Greystar manages more than 500,000 units/beds of apartment
infrastructure in the United States.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 5 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ga82UQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Counsel for the Defendants Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC,
Greystar Management Services, L.P., Greystar RS National, Inc.,
Greystar RS SE, LLC, and GREP Southeast, LLC, are:
Rudolf Garcia-Gallont, Esq.
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
One West Fourth Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Telephone: (336) 721-3600
Facsimile: (336) 721-3660
E-mail: Rudolf.Garcia-Gallont@wbd-us.com
HANAH LIFE: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hanah Life, LLC. The
case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Hanah Life, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-04569 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
HANAH -- https://www.hanahlife.com/ -- sources the best, high
quality, supplements and Ayurvedic superfoods like turmeric,
ashwagandha, shilajit, vechur ghee, cordyceps.[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
HCA HEALTHCARE: Faces Antitrust Class Action in N.C. Over Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Lacey, writing for Asheville Citizen Times, reports that a
class-action, anti-trust lawsuit filed in Buncombe County Aug. 10
charges HCA Healthcare with using a monopoly on the local health
care industry to charge rates much higher than the state average
while quality declines.
In a statement announcing the lawsuit, lawyers representing six
Western North Carolina residents who brought the suit say the
complaint alleges Mission is now the most expensive hospital in the
state for many procedures.
"An out-of-state corporation has used its market power to cut
quality and raise prices," says attorney Mona Lisa Wallace of
Salisbury firm Wallace & Graham. "Mission Health was once the crown
jewel of North Carolina's healthcare system. In filing this action,
the Plaintiffs seek to have HCA live up to its promises of
providing affordable health care in Western North Carolina."
The 87-page lawsuit filed by a number of local community members
charges the hospital system of "restraint of trade and unlawful
monopolization," dating to Mission's 1995 merger with St. Joseph's
Hospital.
It says even before HCA purchased the hospital system, Mission
forced unlawful terms on payers that increased the price of
hospital services, insurance premiums, copays or deductibles across
the system's entire 18-county service area.
"Consolidation of hospital systems is one of the biggest drivers of
rising health care costs," attorney Jamie Crooks of Fairmark
Partners says in the statement. "The complaint alleges that,
through a variety of anticompetitive practices, HCA has overcharged
for health care."
Plaintiffs are asking HCA to refund overcharges and to change its
practices and restore a fair market for healthcare, he says.
According to the lawsuit, "The North Carolina Constitution states:
'Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free
state and shall not be allowed.' However, from 1995 until 2019,
Mission operated its hospital system as a monopoly. In January
2019, HCA acquired Mission and to this day continues to operate it
as a for-profit monopoly."
The Mission-St. Joseph's merger in 1995 left Buncombe and Madison
Counties with only one choice for inpatient general acute care, it
says, but a Certificate of Public Advantage that protected the
system from anti-trust actions was repealed in 2016 "after years of
lobbying by Mission executives."
Nancy Lindell, Mission Health/HCA Healthcare NC Division
spokesperson, said once the company has been served with the
lawsuit, it will respond appropriately through the legal process.
"We are committed to caring for Western North Carolina as
demonstrated through more than $330 million in charity care and
uninsured discounts we provided in 2020, expansion of hospital
services including the opening of the North Tower, a new Pediatric
ER, and securing land for a new 120-bed behavioral health
hospital," she said.
"Further, we have invested in our colleagues with onboarding nearly
1,200 new members this year and providing more than $3 million in
student loan and tuition reimbursement in 2020."
"Mission Health is committed to the health and well-being of every
person who comes to us for care and we are proud of our dedicated
hospital teams that are facing the many challenges of this pandemic
and the exceptional care they have provided to our patients,"
Lindell said.
Mission Hospital departures: Concerns mount as doctors leave HCA
Healthcare
Claire Siegel, an RN in the medical surgical unit at Mission and on
the union negotiating team, speaks to fellow nurses and community
members who gathered to picket in front of Mission Hospital on
Tuesday, June 15, 2021.
Lawsuit: higher prices for worse care
Among the plaintiffs is Chef Katie Button, of Katie Button
Restaurants and Curate. The suit says that "crushing costs of
regular health insurance in the Asheville area, due to
HCA/Mission," led her to switch her business to a self-funded
format.
The complaint says Button has "paid excessive amounts as a
proximate result of Defendants charging supra-competitive prices
for healthcare, similar to the other Plaintiffs," and that the
administrator of her company's self-funded plan, Roundstone, has
advised that the reason the costs are so high is due to
HCA/Mission.
Other named plaintiffs speak of paying "artificially high premiums,
co-payments, deductibles, co-insurance payments, and/or
out-of-pocket payments not covered by the health plans."
One of those is Will Overfelt, of Asheville, an administrator on
the Mission Mountain Maladies Facebook page who says in the
complaint that the quality of care during his father's weeklong
stay in the hospital in February 2020 "was clearly worse [than] it
had been in years past."
A chart included with an anti-trust lawsuit filed in Buncombe
County Aug. 10 compares prices of C-section births at Mission
Hospital compared to the rest of North Carolina.
"Mr. Overfelt noted the rooms were dirty. It was hard to get
information. He had trouble getting his father pain medications
timely," the complaint says.
It says Overfelt noticed a napkin on the floor early on in his
father's hospital room and left it where it was to see if it was
really being cleaned. A week later when his father was discharged,
the napkin was still there.
When it comes to prices for care, the lawsuit alleges that HCA
routinely charges more than state averages.
According to a large dataset, it says, "HCA currently charges more
than two times the State average for a C-section without
complications," a price disparity that only exists "because of the
system's unbridled monopoly power and its status as a 'must have'
system in Western North Carolina."
The complaint says HCA holds an approximate 90% market share for
inpatient general acute care in Buncombe and Madison counties,
giving it "free rein to dictate the prices it charges ... while at
the same time undermining quality to cut costs."
And across the region, it charges that HCA holds a monopoly market
share (70% or more) for inpatient services only in seven counties:
Yancey (90.9%), Madison (90%), Buncombe (86.6%), Mitchell (85.4%),
Transylvania (78.7%) McDowell (76.4%) and Macon (74.7%).
The suit says insurance premiums in counties where Mission operates
are substantially higher than the state average and higher than in
areas with higher costs of living.
It says they're about 50% higher than in Winston-Salem, 55% higher
than in Durham, Raleigh or Charlotte, and about 60% higher than in
Greensboro.
"Crossing the county line from Rutherford County (in Mission's
self-defined service area) to Cleveland County (outside of
Mission's service area), an individual would see premiums drop
immediately by 29%," the complaint says.
A map compares insurance premiums in Mission Health/HCA
Healthcare's Western North Carolina region (outlined in black)
compared with other nearby rates.
Lawmakers, Attorney General weigh in
In a conference call with media Aug. 10, State Rep. Brian Turner
and State Sen. Julie Mayfield said they support the lawsuit and
applaud the plaintiffs for raising important issues.
"People are glad someone is finally paying attention, and a group
of folks had the courage to step up and take on this issue," Turner
said, adding that Mission is the region's largest private employer,
impacting many residents' lives and livelihoods.
"This lawsuit is not the be-all, end-all, fix-all of the problem,"
Mayfield said. "But we do hope it is a strong step in the right
direction in addressing many issues and concerns we have heard."
Both Mayfield and Turner said that in the more than two years since
for-profit HCA purchased the hospital system, they've not heard
from a single patient, physician or staffer who's had a positive
word to say about the changes.
And while she was generally aware of concerns over rising costs of
insurance, Mayfield said she didn't know until reading the
complaint exactly why that is, including Mission and HCA using "its
monopolistic power in negotiations with insurance companies" that
increased costs for everyone.
They also used that monopolistic power, she said, in negotiations
with physician practices who ended up parting ways with the
hospital system, resulting in the area losing dozens of physicians.
"The biggest shock to me is the difference in premiums," Turner
said, noting folks in Western North Carolina paying premiums $100
higher than other places.
"That goes to the bottom line of a family's budget," he said.
Nashville-based HCA Healthcare finalized its deal to buy the
six-hospital, 12,000-employee Mission Health system for $1.5
billion in early 2019 after about a year of negotiations.
The deal required approval from North Carolina Attorney General
Josh Stein, who said in January 2019 that he wouldn't challenge the
deal after changes including the addition of an independent monitor
to review the company's compliance with its 15 commitments to the
community.
Those commitments include maintaining certain services, making
certain investments in facilities, investing in the community and
more and at the time, Stein said the state Justice Department made
major efforts to review the deal's terms to see if the purchase
price was fair, whether it adequately protected services, and
whether the board was properly constituted.
"I do think there is a gap, a regulatory gap, and what the fix is
for that, we can start having those conversations," Mayfield said.
She mentioned another Certificate of Public Advantage or a
re-examining of the powers of the attorney general or other branch
of government to regulate monopolies.
Another regulatory gap is in the attorney general's authority to
regulate hospital conversions, Mayfield said, noting that one thing
she's heard over and over is people being frustrated with the
limited ability of the AG and independent monitor to deal with
problems that arose following the merger.
Since the sale, that independent monitor, Gibbins Advisors, has
heard plenty from a concerned public and departing staffers about
low staffing and overworking doctors and nurses.
The lawsuit says that HCA's monopolistic practices have "caused
reduced quality of service," and that after the sale, "there have
been numerous news reports, public protests, over 100 citizen
complaints sent to the Attorney General, and statements from area
politicians protesting declining quality at the system."
Mission nurses have also unionized since the sale, ratifying their
contract in July after protests and negotiations by nurses, who
made staffing a top issue, along with nurse-to-patient ratios and
more.
Mayfield said she'd be interested in legislation to strengthen the
Attorney General's ability to put in place more parameters around
quality, quantity, pricing, negotiation, and in all the places
where problems have cropped up after the sale.
"I think probably the agreement could have been much more specific
and broader in services that could not be reduced or cut," she
said.
Turner said the AG's role is fairly prescribed, but powers may be
expanded or the state may be able to use another department or
agency to bring more authority.
"Our office is reviewing the lawsuit and will continue to watch
this closely," said Laura Brewer, communications director with
Stein's office. "Attorney General Stein strongly believes in fair
and transparent health care pricing for North Carolinians."
She cited his work in protecting the Affordable Care Act and a
recent letter to hospital administrators asking them to comply with
new federal pricing transparency regulations and send his office a
list of their prices.
The statute that specifies the AG's authority to review the
transaction between Mission and HCA does not include general
oversight over pricing or care, Brewer said.
"As a result, our Office's review of that transaction was
necessarily limited to items such as ensuring that the full value
of Mission's assets would be used for public purposes," she said.
That included requiring the Dogwood Health Trust be independent and
representative and that health care services continue to be
provided, Brewer said.
"I would like to see that this becomes a launching point for
addressing a lot of the broad issues that we've seen," Mayfield
said.
From her perspective, she said, the base problem is that local
health care decisions are being made by a profit-driven company and
out-of-state executives and shareholders.
When Turner came down with COVID-19 earlier this year, he said he
had "real questions about whether or not I wanted to go to Mission
if I had to."
A successful outcome, he said, would be the people of Western North
Carolina having confidence that if they go to Mission, it's not
going to bankrupt them.
Bottom line, what Mayfield said she wants to see is people in the
region having access to excellent health care at more affordable
prices with a quality work environment for those affiliated in the
system, "something we don't have right now." [GN]
HEATHER MUELLER: Class Suit Filed in D. Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heather Mueller. The
case is styled as K.O., by and through his parent and guardian J.O.
on behalf of a class of those similarly situated v. Heather
Mueller, in her capacity as the Commissioner of the Minnesota
Department of Education, State of Minnesota, Case No.
0:21-cv-01837-PJS-ECW (D. Minn., Aug. 12, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Civil Rights: Education for the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Heather Mueller -- https://education.mn.gov/ -- has been named the
Deputy Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Education
(MDE).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel J. Stewart, Esq.
MID-MINNESOTA LEGAL AID
111 N. 5th Street, Suite 100
Minneapolis, MN 55403
Phone: (612) 746-3783
Fax: (612) 746-3783
Email: djstewart@mylegalaid.org
HOLY SEE: Hurn Files Suit in N.D. New York
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Holy See. The
case is styled as Stephen Hurn, Tom Sparks, James Hamilton, Michael
E. Peters, Mary Winne also known as: Mary Ruggeri, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. The Holy See also
known as: The Apostolic See, Case No. 1:21-cv-00913-TJM-DJS
(N.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The Holy See, also called the See of Rome or Apostolic See --
http://www.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html-- is the
jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, known as the Pope, which
includes the apostolic episcopal see of the Diocese of Rome with
universal ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the worldwide Catholic
Church, as well as a sovereign entity of international law,
governing the Vatican City.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
HERMAN LAW FIRM PA
1800 N Military Trail, Suite 160
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: (305) 931-2200
Email: smermelstein@hermanlaw.com
HONDA AIRCRAFT: DM Volbleu Files Suit in E.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Honda Aircraft
Company, Inc., et al. The case is styled as DM Volbleu, LLC,
Silverleaf V, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated persons v. Honda Aircraft Company, Inc., Honda Aircraft
Company, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00637-SDJ (E.D. Tex., Aug. 12,
2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Honda Aircraft Company -- https://www.hondajet.com/ -- is an
aircraft manufacturer headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina,
responsible for the production of the HondaJet family of
aircraft.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert L. Chaiken, Esq.
Kenneth Bruce Chaiken, Esq.
CHAIKEN & CHAIKEN, PC - Plano
5717 Legacy Dr, Suite 250
Plano, TX 75024
Phone: (214) 265-0250
Fax: (214) 265-1537
Email: rchaiken@chaikenlaw.com
kchaiken@chaikenlaw.com
HONEY-CAN-DO: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Honey-Can-Do
International, LLC. The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf
of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Honey-Can-Do
International, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-06811-AJN (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Honey-Can-Do International -- https://honeycando.com/ -- is a
consumer goods company that offers storage and organization
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
HOST HEALTHCARE: Class Settlement in Blount Has Prelim. Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael M. Anello of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California the preliminary approves the Class
Settlement Agreement in the case, SARAH BLOUNT, on behalf of
herself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOST
HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 21cv310-MMA-WVG (S.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff Blount brings the putative wage and hour class action
against the Defendant. She moves for preliminary approval of a
class settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).
The Defendant does not oppose the Plaintiff's motion.
Upon due consideration, Judge Anello grants the Plaintiff's motion.
He preliminarily approves and incorporates the Settlement
Agreement, and conditionally certifies the Settlement Class,
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement's terms and conditions as
follows: "All individuals who worked for Host Healthcare in
California as a non-exempt or hourly employee at any time during
the Class Period, including corporate employees and travel nurses."
The "Class Period" will be from Nov. 16, 2016 to the date of the
Order.
The Judge approves the Notice of Class Action Settlement is
approved. He appoints, for settlement purposes only, (i) Ferraro
Vega Employment Lawyers, Inc. as the Class Counsel; (ii) Sarah
Blount as the Representative Plaintiff; and (iii) Simpluris, Inc.
as the third-party Settlement Administrator.
No more than 15 calendar days after the Order Granting Preliminary
Approval, the Defendant will forward to the Settlement
Administrator, information in electronic format, regarding all the
Class Members' names, last known residence addresses, Social
Security numbers, hire and termination dates, and total workweeks
worked during the Class Period.
No more than 21 calendar days after receipt of the Class Member
Data, the Settlement Administrator will mail the Class Notice to
each Class Member, by first class United States mail, postage
pre-paid. The Settlement Administrator will take those measures
specified, and on the conditions set forth in the Settlement
Agreement, for updating an address after the first mailing of the
Class Notice.
All mailings will be made to the present and/or last known mailing
address of the Class Members based on the Defendant's records, and
as may be updated and located by the Settlement Administrator and
as may be provided to the Settlement Administrator by Class Counsel
or Defendant's counsel.
Requests for exclusion from the Settlement must be mailed to the
Settlement Administrator in the manner set forth in the Class
Notice, postmarked no later than 45 days following the mailing of
the Class Notice by the Settlement Administrator. If the 45th day
falls on a Sunday or Holiday, the Response Deadline will end on the
next business day that is not a Sunday or Holiday.
Written letters of objection to the Settlement may be mailed to the
Settlement Administrator in the manner set forth in the Class
Notice, postmarked no later than 45 days following the mailing of
the Class Notice by the Settlement Administrator. If the 45th day
falls on a Sunday or Holiday, the Response Deadline will end on the
next business day that is not a Sunday or Holiday. Any written
letter of objection should be signed by the Class Member and/or his
or her representative; include the objecting Class Member's name,
address, telephone number, and the case name and number as shown in
the Class Notice; the basis for each objection; a list of any
witnesses to be called at the final approval hearing; and whether
the Class Member and/or his or her representative intends to appear
at the final approval hearing.
No more than 14 calendar days after the Response Deadline, the
Settlement Administrator will serve on all Parties a declaration of
due diligence setting forth its compliance with its obligations
under the Settlement Agreement. Additionally, all papers in support
of the Motion for Order Granting Final Approval of the Class Action
Settlement will be filed at least 28 calendar days before the Final
Fairness/Final Approval hearing.
The Final Approval Hearing will be held before the Court on Oct.
27, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. The Court expressly reserves the right to
adjourn or to continue the Final Approval Hearing from time-to-time
without further notice to the Class Members, except that notice of
a continuance will be provided to all the Class Members who submit
written objections. In the event the Settlement does not become
final for any reason, the Preliminary Approval Order will be of no
further force or effect and the fact that the Parties were willing
to stipulate to class certification as part of the Settlement will
have no bearing on, and will not be admissible in connection with,
the issue of whether a class should be certified in a
non-settlement context.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/xfcapdyj from Leagle.com.
HOUSEHOLD STAFFING.COM: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Household
Staffing.com, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. Household Staffing.com, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-06805-JMF
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Household Staffing -- https://householdstaffing.com/ -- is a
domestic staffing agency serving high-caliber homes
nationwide.[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
INOGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss California Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Inogen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the defendant's motion to dismiss the
complaint in the class action suit entitled, In re Inogen, Inc.
Sec. Litig., No. 2:19-cv-01643-FMO-AGR, is still pending.
On March 6, 2019, plaintiff William Fabbri filed a lawsuit against
Inogen, Scott Wilkinson, and Alison Bauerlein, in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities.
On March 21, 2019, plaintiff Steven Friedland filed a substantially
similar lawsuit against the same defendants in the same court.
On May 20, 2019, the court issued an order consolidating the two
lawsuits under the name In re Inogen, Inc. Sec. Litig., No.
2:19-cv-01643-FMO-AGR, appointing Dr. John Vasil and Paragon Fund
Management as lead plaintiffs, and appointing Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead plaintiffs'
counsel.
On July 10, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between November 8, 2017 and May 7, 2019.
The complaint generally alleges that the defendants failed to
disclose that: (i) Inogen had overstated the true size of the total
addressable market for its portable oxygen concentrators and had
misstated the basis for its calculation of the total addressable
market; (ii) Inogen had falsely attributed its sales growth to the
strong sales acumen of its sales force, rather than to deceptive
sales practices; (iii) the growth in Inogen's domestic
business-to-business sales to home medical equipment providers was
inflated, unsustainable and was eroding direct-to-consumer sales;
and (iv) Inogen's decision to focus on sales over rentals of
portable oxygen concentrators harmed its ability to serve the
Medicare market, in violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount,
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other relief as the
court deems proper.
On January 2, 2020, the court dismissed the consolidated amended
complaint with leave to amend. On January 9, 2020, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint generally alleging substantially
similar claims as those in the previous complaint.
On January 23, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint. On September 2, 2020, the court denied
the defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice and instructed
defendants to file another motion to dismiss if the parties are
unable to resolve the issues relating to the second amended
complaint.
The Company filed its motion to dismiss on October 28, 2020; that
motion is currently pending.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
allegations.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Inogen, Inc., a medical technology company, primarily develops,
manufactures, and markets portable oxygen concentrators for
patients, physicians and other clinicians, and third-party payors
in the United States and internationally. Inogen, Inc. was founded
in 2001 and is headquartered in Goleta, California.
INVESTINET LLC: Disla Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against InvestiNet, LLC,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Eliseo Disla, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. InvestiNet, LLC, Inc.,
LVNV Funding, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-15276-JMV-ESK (D.N.J., Aug. 13,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
InvestiNet -- https://www.investinet.com/ -- is a full service
account receivables management firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Phone: (973) 227-5900
Fax: (973) 244-0019
Email: jkj@legaljones.com
JIGGY PUZZLES: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jiggy Puzzles LLC.
The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Jiggy Puzzles LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-06812 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
JIGGY Puzzles -- https://jiggypuzzles.com/ -- focusing on puzzles
that could also be used as works of art to decorate walls.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Sault City Mulls Joining Opioid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTV News reports that a Sault Ste. Marie city councillor is urging
his fellow councillors, to join a class-action lawsuit aimed at the
manufacturers and distributors of opioids.
The $10-billion lawsuit was launched by the City of Grande Prairie,
Alta., and has also garnered the support of Brantford in southern
Ontario.
It seeks to recoup municipal costs associated with the opioid
crisis and lists more than 40 companies, such as Johnson and
Johnson and Shoppers Drug Mart.
"By all accounts, (the opioid crisis) was initiated by the
pharmaceutical companies," said city councillor Corey Gardi. "Some
of their partners manufactured and distributed some of these drugs
irresponsibly, quite frankly."
Gardi said the number of opioid-related deaths is rising in Sault
Ste. Marie and that the companies that helped to begin the crisis,
should also aid in stopping it.
However, he said it's up to the city's legal team to decide what
options would be best for the city to take.
"At any rate, I think we need to explicitly support this legal
effort," Gardi said
Sault Ste. Marie City Council is hoping to revisit the question of
joining the lawsuit in September. [GN]
JPMORGAN CHASE: E.D. California Dismisses Bouskos Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California ordered the Clerk of the Court
to close the case, MICHAEL BOUSKOS, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE
BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01431-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.).
On Oct. 10, 2019, the Defendant removed the action, which was
brought by the Plaintiff on an individual basis and on behalf of
all others similarly situated.
On Dec. 21, 2020, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to
compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's individual claims, found the
Plaintiff's claims were covered pursuant to the arbitration
agreement, and that because the class action waiver was
enforceable, the Plaintiff was required to pursue his claims on an
individual basis in arbitration. The Court stayed and
administratively closed this action.
On July 29, 2021, a stipulation was filed dismissing the action
without prejudice and with each party to bear its own costs and
fees. The stipulation provides that the Plaintiff does not intend
to pursue arbitration of his individual claims at this time. In
light of the stipulation of the parties, the action has been
terminated, and has been dismissed without prejudice and without an
award of costs or attorneys' fees.
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is ordered to close the file in
the case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of
the action pursuant to Rule 41(a).
A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5vb9m9b9 from Leagle.com.
LA MER EYE: Zimmerman Law Files Class Action Over Under Eye Cream
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to a class action filed by Zimmerman Law Offices PC, in
February 2020, Estee Lauder began selling a new reformulated
version of the La Mer Eye Concentrate that is advertised and
promoted as an improved under-eye cream with triple the
concentrated "Miracle Broth" that can reduce the look of dark
circles for a brighter, healthier look. However, unlike the Eye
Concentrate's previous formula, the lawsuit alleges that the new
reformulated Eye Concentrate causes redness, irritation, burning,
itching, swollen eyes, and chemical burns, and the complaint quotes
dozens of consumer complaints about the reformulated Eye
Concentrate causing these injuries after the first use. The lawsuit
seeks damages arising out of consumers' purchase and use of the
reformulated Eye Concentrate, including refunds of the purchase
price and compensation for injuries.
"For years, women used the Eye Concentrate without any problems.
However, after La Mer changed the formula, these same women are now
suffering burning, irritation and swelling around their eyes from
the reformulated Eye Concentrate," said Thomas Zimmerman of
Zimmerman Law Offices PC, who represents the plaintiff in this
matter. Zimmerman continued: "Estee Lauder must fix the formula of
the La Mer Eye Concentrate, and take responsibility and pay for the
damages and injuries it caused. It is both the ethical and
legally-mandated resolution to this tragedy."
The case is Amy Joseph v. The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. A
copy of the complaint is available upon request, as are interviews
with the attorneys in this matter. The lead plaintiff may also be
available to speak with the media on a limited basis.
If you have purchased La Mer Eye Concentrate under eye cream,
please contact us for more information.
CONTACT:
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr.
tom@attorneyzim.com
Zimmerman Law Offices PC
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
(312) 440-0020 telephone
(312) 286-6598 cell
www.attorneyzim.com [GN]
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Block & Leviton Named Lead Counsel in Morton Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY G. MORTON, Individually and On Behalf of All
Other Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. LEIDOS HOLDINGS INC., ROGER
A. KRONE, and JAMES C. REAGAN, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-01911-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted
Plaintiff Operating Engineers Construction Industry and
Miscellaneous Pension Fund's motion for appointment as Lead
Plaintiff and for designation of Block & Leviton LLP as lead
counsel.
On March 4, 2021, Plaintiff Morton filed against the Defendants a
putative class action on behalf of acquirers of Leidos securities.
Subsequently, Plaintiffs Fred Martens and Lucretia Martens moved to
serve as Lead Plaintiffs and to appoint counsel. Then, on May 3,
2021, Operating Engineers Construction Industry filed a Motion for
appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for designation of Block &
Leviton LLP as lead counsel. Thereafter, Plaintiffs Fred and
Lucretia Martens noticed their non-opposition to Operating
Engineers' lead plaintiff motion, which is therefore now
unopposed.
While no other action asserting the same claims is currently
pending, and because no other party now moves for appointment as
Lead Plaintiff, the Court is nonetheless required to determine
whether Operating Engineers is an appropriate plaintiff to
represent the other putative class members.
In making its determination, the Court is guided by the statutory
rebuttable presumption that the most adequate plaintiff is the
person that (1) has either filed the complaint or made a motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff, (2) has the largest financial
interest in the relief sought by the class, and (3) otherwise
satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The presumption may be rebutted if the Court finds
evidence that the presumptive plaintiff "will not fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class" or is subject to
"unique defenses" that render him or her incapable of adequately
representing the class. A plaintiff appointed as the Lead Plaintiff
may choose counsel to represent the class, subject to Court
approval.
Based on a review of the relevant criteria and materials submitted
in the case, Judge Vyskocil finds that Operating Engineers is the
most adequate plaintiff. Additionally, she approves Operating
Engineer's choice of Block & Leviton LLP as Lead Counsel.
First, Operating Engineers' adequacy to represent the class and
pursue its claims is self-evident, given that it is the only
Plaintiff who now seeks to serve as lead plaintiff. Second,
Operating Engineers' alleged loss -- and therefore its financial
interest in the action -- is the largest among any interested class
representatives. Finally, no one has submitted any evidence or
argument to rebut Operating Engineers' status as the presumptive
most adequate plaintiff.
After reviewing Operating Engineers' application and the other
filings in the case, the Judge finds that Operating Engineers has
made a sufficient preliminary showing that it satisfies the
requirements of Rule 23. Accordingly, she grants Operating
Engineers' application to serve as Lead Plaintiff.
Additionally, the Judge approves Operating Engineers' choice of
Block & Leviton LLP to be Lead Counsel. As exhibited in Operating
Engineers' submissions, Block & Leviton LLP has experience in large
securities class actions, and has also been appointed as
representation of plaintiffs in a number of other cases, including
In re BP Securities Litigation, (S.D. Tex.), In re Google Inc.
Class C Shareholder Litig. (Del. Ch. Ct.), and In re Volkswagen
"Clean Diesel" Marketing, Sales and Products Liability Litigation
(N.D. Cal.).
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Vyskocil granted Operating
Engineers' motion.
As lead counsel, Block & Leviton LLP will have the following
responsibilities and duties, to be carried out either personally or
through counsel whom the firm designates: to coordinate the
preparation and filings of all pleadings; 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(s) at all pretrial
conferences; to call meetings of the Plaintiffs' counsel as they
deem necessary and appropriate from time to time; to coordinate all
settlement negotiations with counsel for the Defendants; to
coordinate and direct pretrial discovery proceedings, preparation
for trial, and trial of the matter and delegate work
responsibilities to selected counsel as maybe required; and to
supervise all other matters concerning the prosecution or
resolution of the claims asserted in the action.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/vuvhv5en from Leagle.com.
LENDINGTREE LLC: Winters Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LendingTree LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Richard Winters, Jr., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. LendingTree LLC,
LendingTree (Parent) Incorporated, Case No. 2:21-cv-01397-DMF (D.
Ariz., Aug. 12, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
LendingTree, LLC -- https://www.lendingtree.com/ -- provides online
tools to aid consumers in their financial decisions.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David James McGlothlin, Esq.
Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
2633 E Indian School Rd., Ste. 460
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: (602) 900-1288
Email: david@kazlg.com
ryan@kazlg.com
LOANCARE LLC: Six Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kristie Six, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Loancare, LLC, Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC,
Case No. CC-41-02021-C-174 was removed from the Raleigh County
Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of West Virginia on Aug. 12, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00451 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005.
LoanCare -- https://www.myloancare.com/ -- is a top national
subservicer, provides loan servicing solutions that assist the
lending industry achieve optimal asset performance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric J. Buckner, Esq.
KATZ KANTOR STONESTREET & BUCKNER
207 South Walker Street
Princeton, WV 24740
Phone: (304) 431-4050
Fax: (304) 431-4060
Email: ebuckner@kksblaw.com
- and -
Jason E. Causey
BORDAS & BORDAS
1358 National Road
Wheeling, WV 26003
Phone: (304) 242-8410
Fax: (304) 242-3936
Email: jcausey@bordaslaw.com
- and -
Jed Robert Nolan
NOLAN CONSUMER LAW
P. O. Box 654
Athens, WV 24712
Phone: (304) 207-0066
Email: jed@protectwvconsumers.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Angela L. Beblo, Esq.
Debra Lee Allen, Esq.
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE
P. O. Box 273
Charleston, WV 25321-0273
Phone: (304) 340-3800
Fax: (304) 340-3801
Email: abeblo@spilmanlaw.com
dallen@spilmanlaw.com
LOUISIANA: LDH Faces Class Action Over Medicaid Youth Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
South Poverty Law Center disclosed that decades of research and
experience have led to a consensus among mental health
practitioners throughout the nation that intensive home- and
community-based mental health services are much more effective and
less expensive than institutionalizing children and youth who have
ongoing mental health needs or who experience a psychiatric crisis.
Children and youth with mental illnesses or conditions who are left
untreated or undertreated have an increased risk of chronic
physical conditions and a shorter life expectancy than those who do
not have a mental health condition. Children with untreated or
undertreated mental health conditions are also at risk of
struggling with self-esteem issues, having strained family and peer
relationships, languishing in school, and becoming involved with
the juvenile justice system. Accordingly, for Louisiana's children
and youth with mental health conditions, access to mental health
services is necessary for them to lead functioning and productive
lives.
The SPLC led a statewide, multi-year investigation into the
Louisiana Department of Health (LDH) to determine if it is
providing or ensuring the provision of necessary mental health
services to Medicaid-eligible youth. The investigation revealed
that the state has failed to provide a coordinated behavioral
health system of intensive home- and community-based services to
47,500 Louisiana Medicaid-eligible children throughout the state
who have been diagnosed with a mental illness or conditions, even
though it is required by federal law. As a result, the SPLC and its
partners -- the National Health Law Program (NHeLP), the National
Center for Law and Economic Justice (NCLEJ), Advocacy Center, and
O'Melveny & Myers LLP -- filed a federal class action lawsuit
against the state.
The plaintiffs are six Louisiana-Medicaid child beneficiaries who
live in different parishes throughout the state. They require
intensive home- and community-based mental health services but are
not receiving them, resulting in dire consequences for them and
their families.
The lawsuit states that Louisiana's repeated failure to meet its
obligation to provide Medicaid-mandated intensive home- and
community-based mental health services to the plaintiffs and the
tens of thousands of similarly situated children and youth
represented by the plaintiffs, has led the children to deteriorate
in their homes and communities, to unnecessarily become at risk of
cycling in and out of traumatic and restrictive psychiatric
facilities, and sometimes to become inappropriately and tragically
involved in the juvenile justice system.
In May 2021, the court granted class certification, meaning that
this case will proceed as a class action lawsuit on behalf of "all
Medicaid-eligible youth under the age of 21 in the State of
Louisiana (1) who have been diagnosed with a mental health or
behavioral disorder, not attributable to an intellectual or
developmental disability, and (2) for whom a licensed practitioner
of the healing arts has recommended intensive home- and community-
based services to correct or ameliorate their disorders." If you
believe your child could be a class member or are unsure and would
like to speak with an attorney, or if you'd like to find out more
information about this lawsuit, please contact us.
A.A., ET AL., V. PHILLIPS, ET AL.
Date Filed: November 07, 2019
Court where filed: U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana
Plaintiffs: Six Louisiana Medicaid-eligible children under the age
of 21 who have been diagnosed with a mental illness or condition,
and who live in different parishes throughout Louisiana
Defendant: sDr. Courtney N. Phillips, in her official capacity as
secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health (LDH), and LDH
Co-Counsel
National Health Law Program (NHeLP), National Center for Law and
Economic Justice (NCLEJ), Disability Rights Louisiana, and
O'Melveny & Myers LLP [GN]
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Appeal on Stay of Strougo Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 25, 2021, that the appeal made in the
putative class action suit entitled, Barbara Strougo v.
Mallinckrodt plc, et al., regarding the Bankruptcy Court action in
staying the suit, has been denied.
In July 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, its CEO Mark C. Trudeau, its Chief Financial Officer Bryan
M. Reasons, its former Interim CFO George A. Kegler and its former
CFO Matthew K. Harbaugh, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Barbara Strougo v.
Mallinckrodt plc, et al.
The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt's securities between
February 28, 2018 and July 16, 2019.
The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder related to
the Company's clinical study designed to assess the efficacy and
safety of its Acthar Gel in patients with amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis.
The lawsuit seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount. A lead
plaintiff was designated by the court on June 25, 2020, and on July
30, 2020, the court approved the transfer of the case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.
On August 10, 2020, an amended complaint was filed by the lead
plaintiff alleging an expended putative class period of May 3, 2016
through March 18, 2020 against the Company and Mark C. Trudeau,
Bryan M. Reasons, George A. Kegler and Matthew K. Harbaugh, as well
as newly named defendants Kathleen A. Schaefer, Angus C. Russell,
Melvin D. Booth, JoAnn A. Reed, Paul R. Carter, and Mark J. Casey.
The amended complaint claims that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the CMS
had informed the Company that it was using the wrong base date AMP
for calculating the Medicaid rebate the Company owed CMS for Acthar
Gel each quarter since 2014; (ii) the Company's reported net income
was improperly inflated in violation of GAAP; (iii) the Company's
contingent liabilities associated with the rebates owed to CMS for
Acthar Gel were misrepresented; (iv) the Company's fiscal year 2019
guidance for Acthar Gel net sales was false; (v) the Company failed
to disclose material information regarding the cases captioned
Landolt v. Mallinckrodt ARD LLC, No. 1:18-cv-11931-PBS (D. Mass.)
(Landolt) and U.S. ex rel. Strunck v. Mallinckrodt ARD LLC, No.
2:12-cv-0175-BMS (E.D. Pa.) (Strunck), or the related investigation
by the DOJ and (vi) the Company failed to disclose that the
clinical trials for Acthar Gel were purportedly initiated in order
to make it appear that alternative revenue opportunities for Acthar
Gel existed and thus offset the expected 10% decline in net sales
as a result of the rebates the Company now had to pay.
On October 1, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
The defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in this
matter. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably
estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss
associated with this lawsuit.
As to the Company, this litigation is subject to the automatic stay
under Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, and on December 4, 2020,
the Bankruptcy Court also enjoined proceedings against the Strougo
Defendants.
The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the Bankruptcy Court action to
the U.S. District Court in Delaware through a motion for
reconsideration, which was denied by that court on January 27,
2021.
Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Employee Stock Purchase Plan Suit Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 25, 2021, that the class action suit
related to Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs), is still stayed.
In July 2017, a purported purchaser of Mallinckrodt stock through
Mallinckrodt's Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs) filed a
derivative and class action lawsuit in the Federal District Court
in the Eastern District of Missouri, captioned Solomon v.
Mallinckrodt plc, et al., against the Company, its CEO, its former
CFO, its Controller Kathleen A. Schaefer, and current and former
directors of the Company (collectively, the "Solomon Defendants").
On September 6, 2017, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its complaint
in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
and refiled virtually the same complaint in the D.C. District
Court.
The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt stock between November
25, 2014, and January 18, 2017, through the ESPPs.
In the alternative, the plaintiff alleges a class action for those
same purchasers/acquirers of stock in the ESPPs during the same
period.
The complaint asserts claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act
and for breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation,
non-disclosure, mismanagement of the ESPPs' assets and breach of
contract arising from substantially similar allegations as those
contained in the Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al.
class action lawsuit. Stipulated co-lead plaintiffs were approved
by the court on March 1, 2018.
Co-lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 4, 2018
having a class period of July 14, 2014 to November 6, 2017. The
complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.
On July 6, 2018, this matter was stayed by agreement of the parties
pending resolution of the Shenk class action lawsuit.
The defendants intends to vigorously defend themselves in this
matter.
On October 13, 2020, the trial court entered an order acknowledging
the automatic stay of this litigation as to the Company pursuant to
Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, and on December 4, 2020, the
Bankruptcy Court also enjoined the proceedings against the
individual named defendants.
Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Shaver Putative Class Suit Further Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 25, 2021, that the putative class
action suit entitled, Laura Shaver v. Mallinckrodt Canada ULC, et
al., No. VLC-S-S-205793, has been further stayed.
On June 1, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
Mallinckrodt plc, Mallinckrodt Canada ULC, Her Majesty the Queen in
right of the Province of British Columbia and the College of
Pharmacists of British Columbia in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, captioned Laura Shaver v. Mallinckrodt Canada ULC, et
al., Court File No. VLC-S-S-205793.
The action purports to be brought on behalf of any persons: (1)
prescribed Methadose for opioid agonist treatment in British
Columbia after March 1, 2014; (2) covered by Pharmacare Plan C
within British Columbia who were prescribed Methadose for opioid
agonist treatment after February 1, 2014; (3) who transitioned from
compounded methadone to Methadose for opioid agonist treatment in
British Columbia after March 1, 2014; (4) covered by Pharmacare
Plan C within British Columbia who were transitioned from
compounded methadone to Methadose for opioid agonist treatment
after February 1, 2014; or (5) falling within such other class
definition as the British Columbia Court may approve.
The suit generally alleges that the Province's decision to grant
Methadose coverage under Pharmacare Plan C and remove compounded
methadone from coverage under Pharmacare Plan C had adversely
affected those being treated for opioid use disorder due to
Methadose allegedly being a significantly less effective treatment
than generic compounded methadone.
The suit asserts that the Province, the College and the
Mallinckrodt defendants knew (or ought to have known) about, failed
to warn patients about and made false representations concerning,
the efficacy of Methadose and the risks of switching from
compounded methadone to Methadose. The suit seeks general, special,
aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages in an unspecified
amount, costs and interest and injunctive relief against the
Province, the College and the Mallinckrodt defendants.
Pursuant to two orders granted by the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice (Commercial List) ("Canadian Court") on October 15, 2020,
the Chapter 11 proceedings commenced by Mallinckrodt plc and
Mallinckrodt Canada ULC pursuant to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code were
recognized and given effect in Canada.
Among other things, the Canadian Court has stayed all proceedings
against the Mallinckrodt defendants, including the British Columbia
class action proceedings.
The Canadian Court granted a further order on February 25, 2021,
staying the British Columbia class action proceedings against all
defendants.
Mallinckrodt said, "At this stage, the Company is not able to
reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any
loss associated with this lawsuit."
Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in LeJeune Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that discovery is ongoing
in the class action suit entitled, LeJeune v. Mammoth Energy
Services, Inc. d/b/a Cobra Energy & ESPADA Logistics and Security
Group, LLC, Case No. 5:19-cv-00286-JKP-ESC.
On March 20, 2019, EJ LeJeune, a former employee of ESPADA
Logistics and Security Group, LLC and ESPADA Caribbean LLC filed a
putative collective and class action complaint in LeJeune v.
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. d/b/a Cobra Energy & ESPADA Logistics
and Security Group, LLC, Case No. 5:19-cv-00286-JKP-ESC, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
On August 5, 2019, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend his complaint, dismissing Mammoth Energy Services,
Inc. as a defendant, adding Cobra Acquisitions LLC as a defendant,
and adding ESPADA Caribbean LLC and two officers of ESPADA—James
Jorrie and Jennifer Gay Jorrie—as defendants.
The amended complaint alleges that the defendants jointly employed
the plaintiff and all similarly situated workers and failed to pay
them overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Puerto Rico law.
The complaint also alleges the following violations of Puerto Rico
law: illegal deductions from workers' wages, failure to timely pay
all wages owed, failure to pay a required severance when
terminating workers without just cause, failure to pay for all
hours worked, failure to provide required meal periods, and failure
to pay a statutorily required bonus to eligible workers.
Mr. LeJeune seeks to represent a class of workers allegedly
employed by one or more defendants and paid a flat amount for each
day worked regardless of how many hours were worked.
The complaint seeks back wages, including overtime wages owed,
liquidated damages equal to the overtime wages owed, attorneys'
fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.
On June 16, 2020, Cobra answered Mr. LeJeune's amended complaint,
denying that it employed Mr. LeJeune and the putative class members
and denying that they are entitled to relief from Cobra.
All other defendants have also answered the amended complaint. The
parties stipulated to conditional certification of a collective
action, and on August 14, 2020, the Court ordered that notice be
sent to all individuals engaged by ESPADA to provide services to
Cobra in Puerto Rico between January 21, 2017 and the present who
were paid a day-rate.
Notice was sent to putative class members on September 15, 2020,
and the opt-in period closed on November 14, 2020.
The parties are in discovery.
Mammoth said, "The Company believes these claims are without merit
and will vigorously defend the action. However, at this time, the
Company is not able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or
whether it will have a material impact on the Company's business,
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows."
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Settlement in Securities Court Gets Initial OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court granted
preliminary approval of settlement in the consolidated class action
suit entitled, In re Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. Securities
Litigation.
In June 2019 and August 2019, the Company was served with three
class action lawsuits filed in the Western District of Oklahoma.
On September 13, 2019, the court consolidated the three lawsuits
under the case caption In re Mammoth Energy Services, Inc.
Securities Litigation.
On November 12, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their first amended
complaint against Mammoth Energy Services, Inc., Arty Straehla, and
Mark Layton. Pursuant to their first amended complaint, the
plaintiffs brought a consolidated putative federal securities class
action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. common stock between October
19, 2017, and June 5, 2019, inclusive.
On January 10, 2020, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the first amended complaint. On March 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed
a second amended complaint for violation of federal securities laws
which contains allegations substantially similar to those contained
in the plaintiff's first amended complaint.
On March 30, 2020, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint. On January 26, 2021, the court granted
the motion to dismiss in part and denied the motion to dismiss in
part.
In May 2021, a settlement was reached and a preliminary approval
from the Court was received. This matter was covered under the
Company's directors' and officers' insurance policy.
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Wendco Putative Class Suit Ongoing in Puerto Rico
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a class action in Puerto Rico initiated by
Wendco of Puerto Rico Inc.
On June 19, 2018, Wendco of Puerto Rico Inc. filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico styled Wendco of
Puerto Rico Inc.; Multisystem Restaurant Inc.; Restaurant Operators
Inc.; Apple Caribe, Inc.; on their own behalf and in representation
of all businesses that conduct business in the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico vs. Mammoth Energy Services Inc.; Cobra Acquisitions,
LLC; D. Grimm Puerto Rico, LLC, et al.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants caused power outages in
Puerto Rico while performing restoration work on Puerto Rico's
electrical network following Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017,
thereby interrupting commercial activities and causing economic
loss.
The Company believes these claims are without merit and will
vigorously defend the action.
Mammoth said, "However, at this time, the Company is not able to
predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it will have a
material impact on the Company's business, financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.
MARRIOTT INT'L: Court Enters Consumer Track Briefing Sched Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Marriott International, Inc.,
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 8:19-md-02879
(Md. Dist. Ct.), the Hon. Judge Paul W. Grimm enters an order
regarding consumer track briefing schedule.
In the briefing schedule for class certification and expert reports
in the Consumer Track, the deadline for the Defendants to oppose
class certification and for the Defendants to serve reports for
class certification experts is September 6, 2021. The Court will be
closed on that day for the Labor Day holiday. Therefore, these
deadlines will be amended to September 7, 2021. All other deadlines
in the schedule remain the same, says Judge Grimm.
Marriott International is an American multinational company that
operates, franchises, and licenses lodging including hotel,
residential, and timeshare properties. It is headquartered in
Bethesda, Maryland.[CC]
MASTERWORKS.IO: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Masterworks.io, LLC.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Masterworks.io, LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-06801 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Masterworks --https://www.masterworks.io/ -- is the first company
to allow investors to buy and trade shares in multi-million dollar
masterpieces created by world-renowned artists.[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
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Court Certifies Class in OLEPTF Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Maxar Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court in Oregon
Laborers Employers Pension Trust Fund, et al. v. Maxar Technologies
Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00124-WJM-SKC, certified a class consisting of
investors who purchased or acquired Maxar stock between May 9, 2018
and October 30, 2018, inclusive.
On January 14, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit captioned Oregon Laborers Employers Pension Trust
Fund, et al. v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00124-WJM-SKC
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
naming Maxar and members of management as defendants alleging,
among other things, that the Company's public disclosures were
deficient in violation of the federal securities laws and seeking
monetary damages.
On October 7, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and members of
management in connection with the Company's public disclosures
between March 26, 2018 and January 6, 2019. The consolidated
complaint alleges that the Company's statements regarding the
AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO communications assets, and
WorldView-4 were allegedly false and/or misleading during the class
period.
On September 11, 2020, the court granted in part, and denied in
part, defendants' motion to dismiss.
On July 16, 2021, the court in the Colorado Action certified a
class consisting of investors who purchased or acquired Maxar stock
between May 9, 2018 and October 30, 2018, inclusive.
Also, in January 2019, a Maxar stockholder resident in Canada
issued a putative class action lawsuit captioned Charles O'Brien v.
Maxar Technologies Inc., No. CV-19-00613564-00CP in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice against Maxar and members of management
claiming misrepresentations in Maxar's public disclosures and
seeking monetary damages.
On November 15, 2019, Mr. O'Brien and another Maxar stockholder
resident in Canada issued a new putative class action lawsuit
captioned Charles O'Brien v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No.
CV-19-00631107-00CP, naming Maxar and certain members of management
and the board of directors as defendants as well as Maxar's
auditor, KPMG LLP. On February 7, 2020, the January 2019 lawsuit
was discontinued.
The Statement of Claim alleges that the Company's statements
regarding the AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO
communications assets, and WorldView-4 were false and/or misleading
during the class period and claims damages of $700 million.
On April 24, 2020, the plaintiffs served their motion record for
leave under the Securities Act (Ontario) and to certify the action
as a class proceeding, which motion is currently pending. The
Company believes that these cases are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against them.
Maxar Technologies Inc. provides space technology solutions for
commercial and government customers worldwide. The company operates
through three segments: Space Systems, Imagery, and Services. The
company was founded in 1969 and is based in Westminster, Colorado.
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: McCurdy Putative Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Maxar Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit entitled, McCurdy v. Maxar
Technologies Inc., et al., No. I9CV35070.
On October 21, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit captioned McCurdy v. Maxar Technologies Inc., et
al., No. I9CV35070 in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara, naming Maxar, and certain
members of management and the board of directors as defendants.
The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company's June 2,
2017 Registration Statement and prospectus filed in anticipation of
its October 5, 2017 merger with DigitalGlobe, Inc.
On April 30, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging the same causes of action against the same set of
defendants as set forth in his original complaint.
The lawsuit is based upon many of the same underlying factual
allegations as the Colorado Action.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges the Company's statements
regarding its accounting methods and risk factors, including those
related to the GEO communications business, were false and/or
misleading when made.
On January 24, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part,
defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against it.
Maxar Technologies Inc. provides space technology solutions for
commercial and government customers worldwide. The company operates
through three segments: Space Systems, Imagery, and Services. The
company was founded in 1969 and is based in Westminster, Colorado.
METROPOLITAN LEARNING: Bid to Compel Discovery in Heras Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SANDRA HERAS, Plaintiff v. METROPOLITAN LEARNING
INSTITUTE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-2694(DG) (E.D.N.Y.),
Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York denied without prejudice the
Plaintiff's motion to compel the Defendants to produce class-wide
discovery regarding other recruiters.
Plaintiff Heras brings the wage-and-hour action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), on
her own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated "recruiters"
employed by Defendants Metropolitan Learning Institute and its
president, Boris Davidoff.
By letter-motion dated June 17, 2021, the Plaintiff seeks an order
directing the Defendants, over their objection to produce
class-wide discovery regarding other recruiters, including
documents listing all recruiters and their workweeks. The Plaintiff
argues that "class-wide discovery has routinely been ordered in the
Second Circuit with respect to claims under both the FLSA and the
NYLL."
The Defendants disagree, citing and quoting from opinions issued
out of this District that have denied similar precertification
discovery requests.
In arguing that courts in this Circuit "routinely" order the
class-wide discovery she seeks and thereby avoid "splitting class
certification discovery and class merits discovery," the Plaintiff
oversimplifies the state of the law and overlooks recent caselaw in
the District. As Judge Brian Cogan explained in Beaton v. Verizon
New York, Inc., 20-CV-672 (BMC), 2020 WL 6449235, at *3 (E.D.N.Y.
Nov. 3, 2020) -- a decision that postdated the Supreme Court's
decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), on
which the Plaintiff heavily relies.
Judge Mann finds that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that
the discovery relevant to her contemplated Rule 23 motion could not
be obtained through alternative means, such as interrogatories
concerning the Defendants' policies and practices regarding
recruiters and/or Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. She thus has not
established her entitlement to class-wide documents, and the Judge,
exercising her "broad discretion to determine the extent of
discovery concerning Rule 23 requirements," denies the Plaintiff's
motion to compel the production of class-wide documents relating to
and identifying other recruiters.
That said, Judge Mann notes that some of the document demands
listed in the Plaintiff's letter-motion seek documents relating to
policies and practices, rather than to specific recruiters; by way
of example only, Document Demand No. 32 requests manuals and
similar documents "concerning the Defendants' compensation policies
and practices. Unfortunately, neither side has addressed each of
the listed Document Demands, but instead has argued either for or
against class-wide discovery, without analyzing any specific
demand. As the parties have not undertaken a demand-by-demand
analysis, the Judge declines to do so, but instead directs the
parties to meet and confer in a good faith effort to resolve any
remaining discovery disputes, consistent with the rationale of the
Opinion.
For the reasons set forth, Judge Mann denied without prejudice the
Plaintiff's motion to compel.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/su75vuwb from Leagle.com.
MICROCHIP TECH: Discovery Ongoing in Jackson Putative Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microchip Technology Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
the putative class action suit entitled, Jackson v. Microchip
Technology Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02914-JJT.
Beginning on September 14, 2018, the Company and certain of its
officers were named in two putative shareholder class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Arizona, captioned Jackson v. Microchip Technology Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-02914-ROS and Maknissian v. Microchip Technology
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02924-JJT. On November 13, 2018, the
Maknissian complaint was voluntarily dismissed.
On December 11, 2018, the Court issued an order appointing the lead
plaintiff in the Jackson matter. An amended complaint was filed on
February 22, 2019.
The complaint is allegedly brought on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of Microchip common stock between March 2, 2018 and
August 9, 2018.
The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws and alleges that the defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects during the putative class period.
The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April
1, 2019, which motion was granted in part and denied in part on
March 11, 2020. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification,
which was granted by the Court.
Discovery is ongoing.
Microchip Technology Inc. develops and manufactures semiconductor
products for various embedded control applications worldwide. The
company, which was incorporated in 1989, is based in Chandler,
Arizona.
MONARCH RECOVERY: Mullins FDCPA Suit Removed to W.D. North Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Nickie Mullins, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., Case No.
12-cvs-876 was removed from the Caldwell County Superior Court to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
on Aug. 12, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00120-KDB-DSC to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. -- https://monarchrm.com/ -- is a
premier accounts receivable management company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5000
Fax: (919) 600-5035
Email: pwallace@milberg.com
sharris@milberg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John Pelczar Wright, Esq.
CRANFILL SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP
2907 Providence Road
Charlotte, NC 28211
Phone: (704) 940-3433
Email: jwright@cshlaw.com
NASDAQ INC: Still Defends City of Providence Case
-------------------------------------------------
Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a
putative class action suit entitled, City of Providence v. BATS
Global Markets, Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 2811 (S.D.N.Y.).
The company was named as one of many defendants in City of
Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 2811
(S.D.N.Y.), which was filed on April 18, 2014 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The district court appointed lead counsel, who filed an amended
complaint on September 2, 2014. The amended complaint names as
defendants seven national exchanges, as well as Barclays PLC, which
operated a private alternative trading system.
On behalf of a putative class of securities traders, the plaintiffs
allege that the defendants engaged in a scheme to manipulate the
markets through high-frequency trading; the amended complaint
asserts claims against the company under Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as under Section 6(b) of the
Exchange Act. The plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief of
an unspecified amount.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
November 3, 2014. In response, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint on November 24, 2014, which names the same
defendants and alleges essentially the same violations.
The company then filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on January 23, 2015. On August 26, 2015, the district
court entered an order dismissing the second amended complaint in
its entirety.
The plaintiffs appealed the judgment of dismissal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (although opting not
to appeal the dismissal with respect to Barclays PLC or the
dismissal of claims under Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act).
On December 19, 2017, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating
the district court's judgment of dismissal and remanding to the
district court for further proceedings.
On May 18, 2018, the exchanges filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, raising issues not addressed in the proceedings
to date. On May 28, 2019, the district court denied the exchanges'
renewed motion to dismiss, leading the parties to commence the
discovery process.
Discovery, focused on issues of whether the case can be certified
as a class action and whether the plaintiffs' claims are precluded
by federal securities regulation, ended on April 26, 2021, and
potentially dispositive motions regarding these issues were filed
on May 28, 2021.
Nasdaq said, "Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, we
are unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this
litigation. However, we believe that the claims are without merit
and will continue to litigate vigorously."
Nasdaq, Inc. manages, operates and provides products and services
in four business segments: Market Services, Corporate Services,
Information Services and Market Technology. The company is based in
New York, New York.
NETFLIX INC: Fort Scott Files Video Franchise Fee Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
KOAM reports that the City of Fort Scott moves forward with
litigation against Netflix and Hulu.
The City claims the companies failed to get authorization to use
public rights-of-way, such as internet facilities. Kansas law
requires that authorization. Therefore, Netflix and Hulu have
failed to pay the related video franchise fee.
Nextflix and Hulu's primary businesses are its video services,
which offer online streaming including programming. Both companies,
according to the petition, do business in Fort Scott, Kansas and
other municipalities in the state.
The services provided by Netflix and Hulu use Internet protocol
technology (i.e. broadband wireline facilities located at least in
part in public rights-of-way).
According to the class action petition, "As video service
providers, Defendants were required to file an application with the
Kansas Corporation Commission for a state-issued video service
authorization prior to providing video service."
The City of Fort Scott says the streaming companies failed to get
authorization to use public rights-of-way. "An authorization would
have permitted video service providers such as Defendants to use
public rights-of-way, as long as said video service provider makes
a franchise payment to each city in which it provides service."
The required franchise payment must be equal to 5% of gross
revenues received by the franchise holder from the provision of
services in that city.
The City of Fort Scott is looking to require Netflix and Hulu to
pay what they owe. The City filed individually and on the behalf of
other Kansas municipalities.
The petition states that the believed Class Action size to be in
excess of 200 municipalities.
In addition to not paying and not having correct authorization, the
City filed a count of Unjust Enrichment.
Count three of the Class Action states, "By not remitting
video-provider fees, Netflix and Hulu have received the benefit of
doing business in the geographic areas of Plaintiff and other class
members without paying required fees, been aware that they were
doing business without paying required fees, and accepted and
retained this benefit under circumstances that are inequitable or
unjust." [GN]
NIKOLA CORP: Court to Reevaluate Lead Plaintiff in UCL Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikola Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the Ninth Circuit
granted in part the mandamus petition, vacated the district court's
December 15, 2020 order, and remanded the case to the District
Court to reevaluate the appointment of a Lead Plaintiff in the
consolidated class action suit related to Unfair Competition Law
(UCL) violations.
Beginning on September 15, 2020, six putative class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors, asserting violations of federal
securities laws under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and, in one case,
violations of the Unfair Competition Law under California law.
The complaints generally allege that the Company and certain of its
officers and directors made false and/or misleading statements in
press releases and public filings regarding the Company's business
plan and prospects.
The actions are: Borteanu v. Nikola Corporation, et al. (Case No.
2:20-cv-01797-JZB), filed by Daniel Borteanu in the United States
District Court of the District of Arizona on September 15, 2020;
Salem v. Nikola Corporation, et al. (Case No. 1:20-cv-04354), filed
by Arab Salem in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on September 16, 2020; Wojichowski v. Nikola
Corporation, et al. (Case No. 2:20-cv-01819-DLR), filed by John
Wojichowski in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona on September 17, 2020; Malo v. Nikola Corporation, et al.
(Case No. 5:20-cv-02168), filed by Douglas Malo in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
October 16, 2020; and Holzmacher, et al. v. Nikola Corporation, et
al. (Case No. 2:20-cv-2123-JJT), filed by Albert Holzmacher,
Michael Wood and Tate Wood in the United States District Court for
the District of Arizona on November 3, 2020, and Eves v. Nikola
Corporation, et al. (Case No. 2:20-cv-02168-DLR), filed by William
Eves in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona on November 10, 2020.
In October 2020, stipulations by and among the parties to extend
the time for the defendants to respond to the complaints until a
lead plaintiff, lead counsel, and an operative complaint are
identified were entered as orders in certain of the filed actions.
On November 16, 2020 and December 8, 2020 respectively, orders in
the Malo and Salem actions were entered to transfer the actions to
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
On November 16, 2020, ten motions both to consolidate the pending
securities actions and to be appointed as lead plaintiff were filed
by putative class members. On December 15, 2020, the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona consolidated the actions
under lead case Borteanu v. Nikola Corporation, et al., No.
CV-20-01797-PXL-SPL, and appointed Angelo Baio as the "Lead
Plaintiff." On December 23, 2020, a motion for reconsideration of
the Court's order appointing the Lead Plaintiff was filed.
On December 30, 2020, a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to
vacate the District Court's Lead Plaintiff order and directing the
court to appoint another Lead Plaintiff was filed before the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 20-73819.
The motion for reconsideration was denied on February 18, 2021.
On July 23, 2021, the Ninth Circuit granted in part the mandamus
petition, vacated the district court's December 15, 2020 order, and
remanded the case to the District Court to reevaluate the
appointment of a Lead Plaintiff.
On January 28, 2021, the district court entered a scheduling order
in the consolidated lawsuit. On March 2, 2021, pursuant to a
stipulation jointly submitted by the parties, the district court
vacated that scheduling order and stayed the securities action
pending disposition of the pending mandamus petition.
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount in damages, attorneys' fees,
and other relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself.
Nikola said, "The Company is unable to estimate the potential loss
or range of loss, if any, associated with these lawsuits, which
could be material."
Nikola Corporation a vertically integrated zero emissions systems
provider that designs and manufactures state of the art battery
electric and hydrogen electric vehicles, electric vehicle
drivetrains, energy storage systems, and hydrogen fueling stations.
The company is based in Phoenix, Arizona.
OATLY GROUP: Gross Law Firm Reminds of September 24 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Oatly Group AB.
Shareholders who purchased shares of OTLY 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/oatly-group-ab-loss-submission-form/?id=18406&from=5
CLASS PERIOD: May 20, 2021 to July 15, 2021
ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Oatly overinflated its gross
margins, revenue, capital expenditure, and market share financial
metrics; (b) the Company overstated its sustainability practices
and impact; (c) the Company exaggerated its growth in China; and
(c) as a result of the foregoing, Oatly's statements about its
operations, business, and prospects were misleading during the
Class Period.
DEADLINE: September 24, 2021 Shareholders should not delay in
registering for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/oatly-group-ab-loss-submission-form/?id=18406&from=5.
NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of OTLY 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 24, 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.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Court Dismisses Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Occidental Petroleum Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court entered
judgment of dismissal in the consolidated putative class action
suit entitled, In re Occidental Petroleum Corporation Securities
Litigation, No. 651830/2020.
On August 8, 2019, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated May 9, 2019, Occidental acquired all of the outstanding
shares of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, through a transaction in
which a wholly-owned subsidiary of Occidental merged with and into
Anadarko.
On May 26, 2020, a putative securities class action captioned City
of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System, et al. v.
Occidental Petroleum Corporation, et al., No. 651994/2020 (City of
Sterling), was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
The complaint asserted claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), based on
alleged misstatements in the Securities Act filings, including the
registration statement filed in connection with the acquisition of
Anadarko and Occidental's related issuance of common stock and debt
securities offerings that took place in August 2019.
The lawsuit was filed against Occidental, certain current and
former officers and directors and certain underwriters of the debt
securities offerings and sought damages in an unspecified amount,
plus attorneys' fees and expenses.
Two additional putative class actions were filed in the same court
(together with City of Sterling, the State Cases) and the State
Cases were consolidated into In re Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Securities Litigation, No. 651830/2020.
On March 4, 2021, the court dismissed the complaint, and on July 1,
2021, the court entered judgment.
Headquartered in Los Angeles, California, Occidental Petroleum
Corporation is engaged in the oil and gas exploration and
production.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Bid to Nix Consolidated Class Suit in NY Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to
dismiss the purported securities class action suit headed by Royce
Setzer, is pending.
The Company and certain of its officers, C. Taylor Pickett, Robert
O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth, are defendants in a purported
securities class action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.
Brought by lead plaintiff Royce Setzer and additional plaintiff
Earl Holtzman, the Securities Class Action purports to assert
claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as
well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seeks an unspecified
amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of
attorneys and experts, and other relief.
The Securities Class Action alleges that the defendants violated
the Exchange Act by making materially false and/or misleading
statements, and by failing to disclose material adverse facts about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including the
financial and operating results of one of the Company's operators,
the ability of such operator to make timely rent payments, and the
impairment of certain of the Company's leases and the
uncollectibility of certain receivables.
The initial complaint was dismissed with prejudice by the U.S.
District Court, but the dismissal was overturned by the U.S Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2020.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended
Complaint in August 2020.
In November 2020, the Company and the officers named in the
Securities Class Action filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is fully briefed and pending
before the District Court.
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. is a real estate investment trust
(REIT). The Company invests in and provides financing to the
long-term care industry. Omega operates healthcare facilities in
the United States which are operated by independent healthcare
operating companies. The company is based in Hunt Valley,
Maryland.
ONESPAN INC: Almendariz Securities Class Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
OneSpan Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that court dismissed the securities class
action entitled, Almendariz v. OneSpan Inc., et al., No.
1:20-cv-04906 (N.D. Ill.).
A complaint was filed on August 20, 2020 against OneSpan and
certain of its officers, asserting claims for purported violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on certain alleged
material misstatements and omissions.
The case is captioned Almendariz v. OneSpan Inc., et al., No.
1:20-cv-04906 (N.D. Ill.).
Specifically, the plaintiff in the Securities Class Action alleges,
among other things, that certain statements about OneSpan's
business were misleading because of defendants' failure to disclose
that OneSpan purportedly had inadequate internal procedures and
controls over financial reporting and related disclosures; and
OneSpan purportedly downplayed the negative impacts of immaterial
errors in its financial statements.
On April 28, 2021, the Securities Class Action was dismissed by the
court without prejudice.
OneSpan Inc. (formerly VASCO Data Security International, Inc.)
designs, develops and markets digital solutions for identity,
security, and business productivity that protect and facilitate
electronic transactions, via mobile and connected devices. The
company is based in Chicago, Illinois.
ORIGINAL PAPERBACKS: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Original Paperbacks,
Inc. The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Original Paperbacks, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-06809-ER (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Original Paperbacks -- https://www.originalpaperbacks.com/ -- aims
to bring high-quality and creative clothing to fulfill the casual
lifestyle needs of their customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
ORLANDO BATHING SUIT: Redick Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Orlando Bathing Suit,
LLC. The case is styled as Crystal Redick, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Orlando Bathing Suit,
LLC doing business as: Everything But Water, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 2:21-cv-06578-PA-KK (C.D. Cal., Aug.
13, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Orlando Bathing Suit doing business as Everything But Water --
https://www.everythingbutwater.com/ -- offers gorgeous designer
swim and resortwear, including bikinis, one piece swimsuits,
separates, sundresses, cover ups, hats and accessories.[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
PLUM PBC: Court Appoints Interim Co-Lead Counsel in Baby Food Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE PLUM BABY FOOD LITIGATION. This Document Relates
to: All Actions, Case No. 21-CV-913-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an order:
a. denying the Defendants' motion to transfer the Consolidated
Action to the District of New Jersey; and
b. appointing Rebecca A. Peterson of Lockridge Grindal Nauen
P.L.L.P. and Susana Cruz Hodge of Lite DePalma Greenberg &
Afanador, LLC as the Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel for the
Plaintiffs and the other members of the proposed classes in
the Consolidated Action.
The consolidated action alleges, inter alia, consumer protection
claims arising from a congressional report dated Feb. 4, 2021, in
which the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Economic
and Consumer Policy found that many popular baby and toddler foods
possibly contained excessive levels of heavy metals, including
arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. Following release of the
report, at least 80 actions were filed against baby food
manufacturers, including Defendants Plum, PBC and its then-parent
company Campbell Soup Company.
Five of those actions were: Ludmila Gulkarov, et al. v. Plum, PBC
and Plum, Inc. (Case No. 4:21-CV-913-YGR); Vanessa Mathiesen v.
Plum, PBC (Case No. 4:21-CV-1763-YGR); Cindy Pereira v. Campbell
Soup Co. and Plum, PBC (Case No. 4:21-CV-1767-YGR); Autumn Ellison
v. Plum, PBC and Plum, Inc. (Case No. 21-CV-2015-YGR); and Jessica
David, et ano. v. Plum PBC (Case No. 4:21-CV-2059-YGR)
("Consolidated Action").
Currently pending before the Court is the Defendants' motion to
transfer the Consolidated Action to the District of New Jersey,
where four similar actions (also now consolidated) are pending.
Also before the Court are two motions of appointment of interim
class counsel, one brought by Plaintiff Sarah Brown and the other
brought by Plaintiffs Ludmila Gulkarov, Janine Torrence, Kelly
McKeon, Josh Crawford, Mayra Moore, Jessica David, Heather Age,
Autumn Ellison, and Vanessa Mathiesen ("Gulkarov Plaintiffs").
Motion to Transfer
Consideration of a motion to transfer venue is a two-step inquiry.
First, the Court must determine whether the action is one that
"might have been brought" in the transferee forum. Second, it must
determine whether transferring the action is warranted based on the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of
justice.
A. Step One
Having reviewed the evidence submitted, Judge Rogers is still not
persuaded that courts in New Jersey could properly exercise
personal jurisdiction over Plum in the cases subject to the motion.
Aside from two self-serving declarations by Campbell, the
Defendants have failed to proffer any evidence demonstrating that
Plum was, in fact, headquartered in New Jersey or that any of the
relevant activities giving rise to the claims occurred there.
Conversely, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs proffer a Statement
of Information filed on Jan. 27, 2021, with the California
Secretary of State indicating that Plum's mailing address,
principal executive office, and executive officers are all based in
Emeryville, California. When confronted with this document, the
Defendants claim that this was an erroneous filing (without any
further explanation) and proffered a Certificate of Surrender filed
on February 22, 2021 with the California Secretary of State.
However, this subsequent filing does not establish that Plum's
executive office and officers were in New Jersey. Rather, it only
lists a Camden, New Jersey mailing address for copies of legal
service.
Moreover, even assuming that this document effectuated a change in
Plum's principal place of business, there is no indication that it
functioned retroactively. The Gulkarov action, the first action
filed in the District arising from the congressional report,
commenced on Feb. 5, 2021. Accordingly, the Certificate of
Surrender does not support a finding of personal jurisdiction over
Plum in New Jersey.
In light of the foregoing, the Judge is unable to conclude, based
on the Defendants' showing on the motion, that the action could
have properly been brought in New Jersey.
B. Step Two
Even assuming the action could have properly been brought in New
Jersey, Judge Rogres holds that the Defendants fail to show that
the requested transfer would better convenience the parties and
witnesses and serve the interests of justice. In sum, she finds
that the balance of the factors weighs against transfer. The
Defendants fail to persuade her that the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and ease of access to the evidence weigh in favor of
transfer. She says, while feasibility of consolidation with other
claims supports transfer, relative court congestion and local
interest in the controversy do not. The remaining factors, the
Plaintiff's choice of forum and familiarity with the applicable
law, are neutral. Accordingly, based on its discretion, the Judge
concludes that transfer is not appropriate and thus denies the
motion.
Appointment of Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel
On June 29, 2021, the Court received applications for co-lead
counsel from (1) the Gulkarov plaintiffs for the appointment of
Rebecca A. Peterson of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. and Susana
Cruz Hodge of Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC as Interim
Co-Lead Counsel, and Stephen R. Basser of Barrack Rodos Bacine as
an Executive Committee member of this action; and (2) Plaintiff
Sarah Brown for the appointment of Melissa S. Weiner of Pearson,
Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Annick M. Persinger of Tycko & Zavareei LLP,
and Rachel Soffin of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC
as Interim Co-Lead Counsel. The Defendants take no position on
these motions.
Having carefully reviewed the submissions by the proposed counsel,
Judge Rogers appoints Rebecca A. Peterson and Susana Cruz Hodge as
the Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the other
members of the proposed classes in the Consolidated Action. At this
juncture, the Judge declines to formally appoint an Executive
Committee member. Nothing prohibits the Interim Co-Lead Counsel
from delegating responsibilities to Mr. Basser. If necessary, the
Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel may petition the Court to formally
appoint one but would have to show good cause. However, at this
point, the Judge finds that such a structure would merely increase
administrative expense.
Conclusion
The motion to transfer is denied. The Gulkarov Plaintiffs' motion
for appointment of interim class counsel is granted in part and
denied in part. Plaintiff Brown's motion in this regard is denied.
The parties are directed to meet and confer and file a proposed
schedule for the filing of the amended complaint and response
thereto within five business days of the date of the Order.
The Interim Co-Lead Counsel must serve a copy of the Order promptly
by overnight delivery service, electronic mail, facsimile, or other
expeditious electronic means on the counsel for the Plaintiffs in
each related action not yet consolidated in this proceeding to the
extent that the Interim Co-Lead Counsel is aware of any such
action(s) and on all attorneys for the Plaintiffs whose cases have
been so consolidated but who have not yet registered for ECF.
The Order terminates Docket Numbers 34, 70, and 71.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2sza9n9j from Leagle.com.
PORSCHE AG: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Warranty Repairs
--------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Porsche class action lawsuit alleges California consumers pay for
parts and repairs that should be covered under California emissions
regulations.
The Porsche lawsuit includes the following consumers.
"All persons in California who have been owners or lessees of
PORSCHE vehicles and who have paid for repairs and parts that
should have been covered under PORSCHE's "high-priced warranted
parts" 7-year 70,000-mile California emissions warranty (the
"Class")."
However, the lawsuit says the plaintiffs reserve the right to add
more states other than California.
According to the Porsche class action lawsuit, the automaker fails
to properly identify the parts that should be classified as
"high-cost emissions warranty parts" under California regulations.
Allegedly so it can save money on warranty repairs, the class
action lawsuit says Porsche limits the parts that should be covered
by the emissions warranty for 7 years and 70,000 miles. This
allegedly allows Porsche to limit the warranty coverage for those
parts to only 4 years and 50,000 miles.
For more than 20 years, the California Code of Regulations has a
section entitled "Emission Control System Warranty Requirements for
1990 and Subsequent Model Year Passenger Car, Light-Trucks, and
Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines."
This requires Porsche to list to regulators all vehicle parts that
are "high-priced warranted parts."
The class action says this requires Porsche to provide a 7-year
70,000-mile warranty to California consumers relating to all
high-priced warranted parts.
"A 'warranted part' is defined as, 'any part installed on a motor
vehicle or motor vehicle engine by the vehicle or engine
manufacturer, or installed in a warranty repair, which affects any
regulated emission from a motor vehicle or engine which is subject
to California emission standards.'"
The plaintiffs claim Porsche intentionally omits from the warranty
booklet the parts that should be listed as high-priced warranted
parts that should be covered under the 7-year 70,000-mile emissions
warranty.
The plaintiffs allege Porsche forces customers to pay for parts and
repairs the automaker should legally pay for under the warranty.
The Porsche class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California: Ferry, et al., vs.
Porsche Cars North America, Inc., et al.
The plaintiffs are represented by the Law Office of Robert L.
Starr. [GN]
PREFERRED CAREGIVERS: Court Junks Badon Bid to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY BADON, ET AL. v.
PREFERRED CAREGIVERS AND SITTERS, LLC, ET AL., Case No.
2:20-cv-01065-ILRL-MBN (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle
enters an opinion denying the plaintiff Anthony Badon's motion to
certify a class.
The Court said, "the plaintiffs have motioned for conditional class
certification under Lusardi, and defendants have objected utilizing
that same framework. However, the Fifth Circuit has since
reprobated Lusardi and reproached the entire concept of conditional
certification. Thus, the basis for plaintiffs' motion for
"conditional" certification is rejected. Therefore, no later than
20 days from entry of this order, plaintiffs and defendants shall
jointly meet to discuss the scope of discovery necessary to
determine which putative class members are sufficiently "similarly
situated" to justify notice. Within days after concluding those
discussions, parties shall jointly submit a report with a proposed
discovery and deposition schedule for the purpose of answering
whether named and potential opt-in parties are too divisive a group
to be "similarly situated", along with a briefing schedule to hear
a contemplated motion for class certification. Thereafter, the
Court will convene a status conference via video conference with
parties' counsel."
This case arises from the defendant Preferred Caregivers owned by
defendants Barry Wright and Millicent alleged practice of
misclassifying employees (potential plaintiff class) as independent
contractors in order to deprive them of otherwise federally
mandated overtime pay.
Mr. Badon alleges that he began working for defendants in 2019 to
provide home health services for defendants' clients. Throughout
Mr. Badon's employment for defendants, the latter controlled his
schedules, rates of pay, and job requirements.
Plaintiff Badon initially filed a Collective Action Complaint on
March 31, 2020.
Preferred Caregivers is a home health agency serving New Orleans,
Louisiana.
A copy of the Court's opinion dated Aug. 5 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sBVrz3 at no extra charge.[CC]
PTC INC: 401(K) Plan Related Suit in Massachusetts Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
PTC Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a
putative class action suit related to its 401(k) Plan.
On September 17, 2020, three individual plaintiffs filed a putative
class action lawsuit against PTC, the Investment Committee for the
PTC Inc. 401(k) Plan, and the Board of Directors in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging claims
regarding the Plan.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") in the oversight of the Plan, principally by allegedly
selecting and retaining certain investment options despite their
higher fees and costs than other available investment options,
causing participants in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping
fees and suffer lower returns on their investments, and by
allegedly failing to monitor other fiduciaries.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of
Plan participants from September 17, 2014 through the date of any
judgment.
After the company's motions to dismiss the complaint were denied,
the company filed an answer to the complaint on May 4, 2021.
PTC said, "We are currently unable to reasonably estimate what
effect the ultimate outcome might have, if any, on our financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."
PTC Inc. develops and delivers software products and solutions
worldwide. It operates in two segments, Software Products and
Services. The Company was formerly known as Parametric Technology
Corporation and changed its name to PTC Inc. in January 2013. PTC
Inc. was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Needham,
Massachusetts.
RADIUS GLOBAL: Daidone Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radius Global
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Angelo Daidone, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Radius Global
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-04538-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 12,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Radius Global Solutions LLC -- https://www.radiusgs.com/ --
provides debt recovery services and customer contact
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tamir Saland, Esq.
STEIN SAKS
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Millman & Powell Won't Be Tried Separately
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OPAL MILLMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. RAYTHEON
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION F/K/A UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, et
al., Defendants, Cause No. 1:16-CV-312-HAB (N.D. Ind.), Judge Holly
A. Brady of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, denied the Defendants' motions for
separate trials.
Once separate claims, the suits filed by Opal Millman and Eric and
Laury Powell were consolidated "for all purposes" by the Court on
motion by the Defendants and over the Plaintiffs' objection. The
Defendants have thought better of that procedural move. They now
come before the Court asking that the consolidated case be tried to
two juries, one for Millman and one for the Powells. The Defendants
claim that, because of the differences in alleged injuries and
exposures, they will be "severely prejudiced" by potential juror
confusion.
Procedural History
The case began in 2016 when Millman filed a class action complaint
in the Huntington County Superior Court. That suit was removed by
the Defendants under the Class Action Fairness Act. Six months
later, the Powells filed a federal action, naming the same
Defendants, seeking injunctive relief under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"). The two suits were filed by
the same law firm and, for the most part, alleged identical facts.
Noting the similarity in the cases, the Defendants moved to
consolidate the matters. As the Plaintiffs noted, the Defendants
were not equivocal in their belief that the cases were
substantively the same; the Defendants stated it forcefully and
repeatedly. The Court agreed with Defendants, with Judge Phillip
Simon holding that "absent consolidation, there would be separate
trials involving identical legal claims and substantially
overlapping witnesses and documentary evidence. That would waste
judicial time and resources for claims that could be more
efficiently adjudicated in one trial." Thus, the matters were
consolidated for "all further proceedings."
After more than two years of class-related discovery, the
Plaintiffs moved to certify a liability only class action in April
2019. That motion was denied. In summary, the Court found that the
Plaintiffs could not show the typicality requirement of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3) or that the case was amenable to
particular issue certification under Rule 23(c)(4). The case then
proceeded on the Plaintiffs' individual claims only.
Following eighteen months of additional discovery, the Defendants
filed these motions for separate trials.
Factual Background
The parties' briefs discuss the same case, but one could be
forgiven for assuming otherwise. Depending on the brief one reads,
the cases of Millman and the Powells are either: (1) virtually
identical, save some personal details; or (2) very different,
sharing only a handful of background facts. These competing
viewpoints are at the heart of the separate trial issue.
A. Facts Shared by All Plaintiffs
At the most basic level, the case arises out of Defendants admitted
release of hazardous chemicals, including chlorinated solvents like
trichloroethylene ("TCE"), in and around the town of Andrews,
Indiana. These releases flowed from two facilities: a manufacturing
facility owned by Defendant Raytheon's corporate predecessor ("UTA
Facility") and a gas station now owned and operated by the L.D.
Williams Defendants ("Gas Station"). Workers at the UTA Facility
used TCE, a known human carcinogen, to clean metal parts in two
degreaser pits at the southern end of the property. The Plaintiffs
have identified at least five employees who will testify to the use
and improper disposal of TCE. The chemical was not used in small
amounts -- in a filing with the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management ("IDEM") in 1993, UTA reported that it used as much as
14.5 tons of TCE per year.
B. Facts Specific to Individual Plaintiffs
The most obvious difference between Millman and the Powells is the
claimed injuries. Millman claims that she has developed trigeminal
neuralgia, a chronic condition affecting the trigeminal nerve,
because of her exposure to the VOCs emitted by Defendants. The
Powells, on the other hand, allege only a general fear and
increased risk of potential future health effects.
Indoor air testing of Millman's residence began in July 2006. Based
on the results of that testing, a vapor mitigation system was
installed in Millman's crawlspace. Since March 2017, all tests for
VOCs in Millman's home have shown levels below applicable IDEM
screening levels. Testing of the Powells' home did not begin until
2013. That testing has always shown VOC levels below applicable
IDEM limits. Thus, no vapor mitigation system has been installed in
their home.
As one would expect, the three Plaintiffs have different personal
histories. Each have different medical backgrounds, treating
physicians, and experts that will testify about their damages. They
have lived at their respective residences for different periods of
time. They have been exposed to differen t levels of VOCs and the
exposure came from different sources, including the Plaintiffs'
employment and hobbies.
Legal Analysis
Understanding that two trials rarely promote judicial economy when
one might suffice, the Defendants assert that separate trials are
required to avoid prejudice. They claim that, if the claims are
tried jointly, "the sympathetic nature of the Plaintiffs' claims
may cause the jury to disregard significant differences in each of
their medical, residential, and employment histories, along with
the stark difference in the type of injuries they allege." Reduced
to its essence, the Defendants' argument is that a jury cannot be
expected to keep the facts in Millman's claim separate from those
of the Powells.
Judge Brady does not share the Defendants' concerns, largely
because of the "significant differences" noted throughout their
briefs. If their briefs are accurate, virtually all the causation
and damages evidence will be different for each Plaintiff. This
includes causation experts, medical histories, medical providers
and treating physicians, and evidence on each Plaintiffs' exposure
history. The Defendants' own experts will provide different
opinions about each Plaintiff. Even if the claims are tried
together, then, there appears to be little, if any, overlap in the
evidence to be presented as to the details of each claim.
What this tells Judge Brady is that it will be easy for jurors to
keep the claims straight. She finds it less likely that the
evidence will confuse jurors than in many other multi-claim and
multi-party cases.
The Defendants' preferred authority, Bailey v. Northern Tr. Co.,
196 F.R.D. 513 (N.D. Ill. 2000), an employment discrimination case,
does not alter the Judge's analysis. First, she notes that separate
trial decisions in other cases will always be of limited value
since the decision must be made on a "case by case" basis. She also
believes that the Defendants have greatly minimized the
foundational evidence that would need to be duplicated in the event
of separate trials. Similarly, they claim that the Court should not
be concerned with evidence about their release of toxic chemicals
because "the fact that contamination was released and because
present in the groundwater has been known and admitted by Raytheon
since 1993." Finally, any prejudice to Defendant can be cured
through a properly instructed and informed jury.
Yes, prejudice to a party is reason enough for separate trials,
Judge Brady notes. That said, Judge Brady holds, mere speculation
that a party might be prejudiced by certain evidence is an
inadequate basis to grant a separate trial. But mere speculation is
all the Defendants offer. She does not accept or share that
speculation.
Conclusion
For these reasons, the Defendants' motions for separate trials are
denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/v59tuzkw from Leagle.com.
REALOGY GROUP: Appeal in Whitlach Putative Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal in Whitlach
v. Premier Valley, Inc. d/b/a Century 21 M&M and Century 21 Real
Estate LLC (Superior Court of California, Stanislaus County), is
pending.
This was filed as a putative class action complaint on December 20,
2018 by plaintiff James Whitlach against Premier Valley Inc., a
Century 21 Real Estate independently-owned franchisee doing
business as Century 21 M&M.
The complaint also names Century 21 Real Estate LLC, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company and the franchisor of Century 21 Real
Estate, as an alleged joint employer of the franchisee's
independent sales agents and seeks to certify a class that could
potentially include all agents of both Century 21 M&M and Century
21 in California.
In February 2019, the plaintiff amended his complaint to assert
claims pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA").
Following the Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's non-PAGA claims
without prejudice in June 2019, the plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint asserting one cause of action for alleged civil
penalties under PAGA in June 2020 and continued to pursue his PAGA
claims as a representative of purported "aggrieved employees" as
defined by PAGA.
As such representative, the plaintiff seeks all non-individualized
relief available to the purported aggrieved employees under PAGA,
as well as attorneys' fees.
Under California law, PAGA claims are generally not subject to
arbitration and may result in exposure in the form of additional
penalties.
In the second amended complaint, the plaintiff continues to allege
that Century 21 M&M misclassified all of its independent real
estate agents, salespeople, sales professionals, broker associates
and other similar positions as independent contractors, failed to
pay minimum wages, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, failed
to pay timely wages, failed to keep proper records, failed to
provide appropriate wage statements, made unlawful deductions from
wages, and failed to reimburse plaintiff and the putative class for
business related expenses, resulting in violations of the
California Labor Code. The demurrer filed by Century 21 M&M (and
joined by Century 21) on August 3, 2020 to the plaintiff's amended
complaint, was granted by the Court on November 10, 2020,
dismissing the case without leave to replead.
In January 2021, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the
Court's order granting the demurrer and filed its brief in support
of the appeal on June 28, 2021.
This case raises various previously unlitigated claims and the PAGA
claim adds additional litigation, financial and operating
uncertainties.
Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.
RENOVACARE INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of September 14 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 10 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against RenovaCare, Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, and docketed under 21-cv-13930, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired RenovaCare
securities between August 14, 2017 and May 28, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
RenovaCare securities during the Class Period, you have until
September 14, 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.
RenovaCare is a development stage company that has not generated
any revenue since its inception and has no commercialized products.
Its activities primarily consist of research and development,
business development, and capital raises. It owns the CellMist
System, which consists of a treatment method for cell isolation for
the regeneration of human skin cells and other tissues (the
CellMist Solution) and a solution sprayer device to deliver cells
to the treatment area (the SkinGun).
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) at the direction of the
Company's controlling shareholder and Chairman, Harmel Rayat
("Rayat"), RenovaCare engaged in a promotional campaign to issue
misleading statements to artificially inflate the Company's stock
price; (ii) when OTC Markets Group, Inc. ("OTC Markets") inquired,
RenovaCare and Rayat issued a materially false and misleading press
release claiming that no director, officer, or controlling
shareholder had any involvement in the purported third party's
promotional materials; (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's disclosure controls and procedures were defective; and
(iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On May 28, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
issued a litigation release stating that RenovaCare was being
charged with alleged securities fraud. According to the SEC's
complaint, between July 2017 and January 2018, Rayat "arranged, and
caused RenovaCare to pay for, a promotional campaign designed to
increase the company's stock price." Specifically, "Rayat was
closely involved in directing the promotion and editing promotional
materials, and arranged to funnel payments to the publisher through
consultants to conceal RenovaCare's involvement in the campaign."
When OTC Markets requested that RenovaCare explain its relationship
to the promotion, the complaint alleges that "Rayat and RenovaCare
then drafted and issued a press release and a Form 8-K that
contained material misrepresentations and omissions denying Rayat's
and the company's involvement in the promotion."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.66, or 24.8%, over
three consecutive trading sessions to close at $2.00 per share on
June 2, 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
URL: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com[GN]
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Bid to Reconsider Remand of Gordon Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ISAAC GORDON, an individual, and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-CV-0390-TOR (E.D.
Wash.), Judge Thomas O. Rice of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington:
(i) denied the Defendant's Motion for Partial
Reconsideration; and
(ii) granted the Defendant's Motion to Expedite.
The case concerns the "Refer a Friend" ("RAF") marketing feature
from the Defendant's online investment brokerage application, which
Plaintiff alleges violates the Washington Consumer Protection Act
("CPA") by way of the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act
("CEMA"). The factual background is set forth in the Court's Order
Granting Class Certification.
On Jan. 25, 2021, the Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification. It appointed (i) Isaac Gordon as the Class
Representative; (ii) Kirk D. Miller of Kirk D. Miller, P.S. as the
Class Counsel; and (iii) Brian G. Cameron and Shayne J. Sutherland
of Cameron Sutherland, PLLC were also appointed as the Co-Class
Counsel.
On Feb. 24, 2021, the Court granted the applications of E. Michelle
Drake and Sophia M. Rios of Berger Montague PC to appear pro hac
vice for the Plaintiff. On March 11, 2021, the Court appointed E.
Michelle Drake as the co-class counsel. On April 27, 2021, the
Court granted the parties' Joint Proposed Class Notice Plan and
Stipulated Motion to Expedite.
On May 11, 2021, the Defendant filed a Motion to Seal, Motion to
Stay, and Stipulated Motion to Expedite Motion to Stay and for a
Briefing Schedule. It raised allegations that the lawsuit was
orchestrated by the transmittal of a text message by the class
co-counsel's brother John Cameron. The Defendant also alleges that
class co-counsel's son's friend (Nathan Budke) also sent a text
message to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff contends his suit
hinges on only one text message sent on July 24, 2019.
Indeed, the FAC contains a screenshot of the text message, but the
surrounding text messaging conversation is redacted. When
questioned who sent him the allegedly offending text message, the
Plaintiff swore under oath that he was "uncertain", that he was
"uncertain" how they met, that he was "uncertain" as to their
relationship, and was he was "uncertain" if the Plaintiff provided
his phone number. The class counsel electronically signed the
answers to discovery as well. Only after the Defendant investigated
further and filed its motion to stay with supporting allegations
that the lawsuit was manufactured, did the Plaintiff amend his
answer to reveal that John Cameron sent the allegedly offending
text message, that he met John Cameron in early January 2019 at a
wine bar and restaurant that the Plaintiff owned in downtown
Spokane, that the Plaintiff met John Cameron several times during
regular business hours at his wine bar, that Plaintiff also played
fantasy role-playing games and card games with John Cameron on
several occasions between March 2019 and August 2019, that he has
socialized with him thereafter, and that the Plaintiff provided his
phone number to John Cameron.
On May 26, 2021, the Court granted the Defendant's Motions to Seal
and Stay. In that Order, it stated that the proceeding, including
all deadlines, class discovery, and class notice is stayed pending
the Defendant's discovery into these new allegations. Following
that Order, the parties engaged in extensive motion practice,
including the Defendant's motion for decertification.
On July 27, 2021, the Court ruled on the pending motions. In that
Order, the Court granted the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to
withdraw as class representative, granted the Defendant's unopposed
motion for decertification, denied the Defendant's motion to
disqualify class counsel, granted E. Michelle Drake and Sophia M.
Rios' motion to withdraw as class counsel for the Plaintiff, denied
as moot the remaining discovery motions, and remanded the case back
to State Court due to the one remaining state law claim for $500 on
the grounds that the Court had no subject matter jurisdiction.
Following that Order, the Defendant filed the present motions. The
parties timely filed their respective response and reply.
The Defendant moves for partial reconsideration of the Court's
prior order that remanded the case on the grounds that the Court
maintained subject matter jurisdiction under Ninth Circuit law
interpreting the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The Plaintiff
argues that the case no longer belongs in federal court or in the
alternative, he seeks leave to amend to remove all class
allegations.
In 2010, the Ninth Circuit held in United Steel, Paper & Forestry,
Rubber, Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int'l Union v.
Shell Oil Co., 602 F.3d 1087, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2010), that under
CAFA, "post-filing developments do not defeat jurisdiction if
jurisdiction was properly invoked as of the time of filing." In
that case, however, the court noted that there are exceptions to
this rule, "such as when a case becomes moot in the course of
litigation or when there was no jurisdiction to begin with because
the jurisdictional allegations were frivolous from the start."
The Defendant relies on United Steel and its stated proposition
that a class action, "once properly removed, stays removed."
However, the Ninth Circuit has since walked back this general rule:
"Taken at face value, the stated maxim proves too much: It squarely
contradicts the statutory language, which provides for remand of
CAFA actions on (mostly) the same terms as any other case removed
to federal court." The primary concern in United Steel was
"thwarting jurisdictional ping-pong game[s] in which parties lob a
case back and forth between federal and state courts as post-filing
developments occur."
The case was in a procedural posture that is distinguishable from
United Steel, in that questions were raised as to whether the Court
has, or ever had, jurisdiction. The Defendant argues that the case
was fraudulent from the outset but that the Court nonetheless has
subject matter jurisdiction over such fraudulent claims.
Judge Rice holds that the Defendant cannot have it both ways. He
says such fraudulent activities that the Court expressed concern
over, makes the initiation of this action frivolous from the start.
Moreover, the case is essentially moot where the class is
decertified, the Plaintiff has withdrawn as the class
representative, and the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff may
move for voluntary dismissal. Under these circumstances, there is
no risk of jurisdictional ping-pong because "this rally has
concluded." The Judge finds the Court has not committed clear error
or made a decision that is manifestly unjust. Therefore, the
Defendant's motion for partial reconsideration is denied.
Accordingly, Judge Rice denied the Defendant's Motion for Partial
Reconsideration. He granted its Motion to Expedite. The District
Court Executive is directed to enter the Order and furnish copies
to counsel. The file remains closed.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5cvcdjc5 from Leagle.com.
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Bid to Amend Sanchez Putative Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion seeking
to amend the complaint in Crystal Sanchez, et. Al. v. Santander
Bank, N.A., No. 17-cv-5775, is pending.
Santander Bank, N.A. (SBNA) is a defendant in a putative class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court, District of New
Jersey, captioned Crystal Sanchez, et. Al. v. Santander Bank, N.A.,
No. 17-cv-5775.
The lawsuit alleges that SBNA failed to pay overtime to current and
former branch operations managers.
The Court denied SBN's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff's motion seeking to amend its complaint to add additional
state law claims is fully briefed.
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Initial OK of Ruf-Tepper Settlement Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the plaintiffs in
Daniel and Rebecca Ruf-Tepper v. Santander Bank, N.A., No.
20-cv-00501, filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of a
settlement with SBNA pursuant to which SBNA will pay a total of $2
million to resolve the litigation.
Santander Bank, N.A. (SBNA) is a defendant in a putative class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, captioned Daniel and Rebecca Ruf-Tepper v.
Santander Bank, N.A., No. 20-cv-00501.
The Tepper Lawsuit, filed in January 2020, alleges that SBNA is
obligated to pay interest on mortgage escrow accounts pursuant to
state law.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and SBNA has filed a motion
to dismiss.
On July 12, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary
approval of a settlement with SBNA pursuant to which SBNA will pay
a total of $2 million to resolve the litigation.
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Ponsa-Rabell Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that that the plaintiffs
in Jorge Ponsa-Rabell, et. al. v. SSLLC, Civ. No. 3:17-cv-02243,
have appealed the order of dismissal made by the District Court.
Santander Securities LLC (SSLLC), Santander BanCorp, Banco
Santander Puerto Rico (BSPR), the Company and Santander are
defendants in a putative class action alleging federal securities
and common law claims relating to the solicitation and purchase of
more than $180.0 million of Puerto Rico bonds and $101.0 million of
CEFs during the period from December 2012 to October 2013.
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico and is captioned Jorge Ponsa-Rabell, et.
al. v. SSLLC, Civ. No. 3:17-cv-02243.
The amended complaint alleges that defendants acted in concert to
defraud purchasers in connection with the underwriting and sale of
Puerto Rico municipal bonds, CEFs and open-end funds.
In May 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On July 22, 2020, the District Court dismissed the
complaint.
Plaintiffs have appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.
SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in Agar Class Action Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Sensient Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3,
2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that discovey
is stayed in the class action suit initiated by Calvin Agar against
Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI).
On March 29, 2019, Calvin Agar, a former employee, filed a Class
Action Complaint in Stanislaus County Superior Court against SNI.
On May 22, 2019, Agar filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint
against SNI.
Agar alleges that SNI improperly reported overtime pay on
employees' wage statements, in violation of the California Labor
Code. The Complaint alleges two causes of action, both of which
concern the wage statements.
The Complaint does not allege that SNI failed to pay any overtime
due to Agar or any of the putative class or group members. The
Complaint merely challenges the manner in which SNI has reported
overtime pay on its wage statements.
SNI maintains that it has accurately paid Agar and the putative
class members for all overtime worked, and that they have not
experienced any harm. SNI further maintains that the format of its
wage statements does not violate the requirements of state law or
any specific guidance from California decisional law, the
California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, or the
California Labor Commissioner's Office. Finally, SNI contended that
certain of the state law claims are subject to mandatory individual
arbitration.
SNI filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint on
July 10, 2019. The parties participated in an early mediation in
the case in December 2019, which was not successful.
On March 17, 2020, the Court granted Agar leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint, which removed the claim that SNI had asserted
was subject to mandatory individual arbitration. SNI filed a
Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint, seeking dismissal of the
remaining claim, on May 1, 2020.
The Court overruled the Demurrer on September 1, 2020. SNI
requested discretionary appellate review of this decision. The
Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate
District granted SNI's application on February 19, 2021 and ordered
briefing by the Parties.
Discovery is currently stayed in the matter pending the outcome of
appellate review.
SNI continues to evaluate the developing legal authority on this
issue. SNI intends to continue to vigorously defend its interests,
absent a reasonable resolution.
Sensient Technologies Corporation, incorporated on December 7,
1882, is a manufacturer and marketer of colors, flavors and
fragrances. The Company uses technologies at facilities around the
world to develop specialty food and beverage systems, cosmetic and
pharmaceutical systems, specialty inks and colors, and other
specialty and fine chemicals. The company is based in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.
SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in Kelley Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sensient Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3,
2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that discovery
is ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Kelley v. Sensient
Natural Ingredients LLC; Bryan v. Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC
(SNI).
On March 4, 2020, Monique Kelley filed a Class Action Complaint
against SNI in Merced County Superior Court in California. Ms.
Kelley worked at SNI for less than a week in 2017 through a
temporary staffing company.
Ms. Kelley has brought suit for purported violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code on her own behalf, and on behalf of all current and former
California-based hourly-paid or non-exempt employees of SNI.
Ms. Kelley specifically asserts claims for unpaid overtime wages,
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid meal and rest break premiums, failure
to timely pay final wages upon termination, non-compliant wage
statements, and unreimbursed business expenses.
SNI filed a Demurrer on May 21, 2020, seeking dismissal of the
Complaint in its entirety on the grounds that it contains only
boilerplate allegations that fail to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action, and it is otherwise uncertain,
ambiguous, and unintelligible.
SNI further sought dismissal of one cause of action based upon the
statute of limitations.
SNI simultaneously filed a Motion to Strike certain allegations in
the Complaint as improperly pled.
The Court sustained the Demurrer with leave to amend on August 25,
2020. The Court also granted the Motion to Strike. Ms. Kelley has
amended her original pleading, asserting the same causes of action,
to which SNI has filed a responsive pleading.
The parties have begun discovery.
Sensient Technologies Corporation, incorporated on December 7,
1882, is a manufacturer and marketer of colors, flavors and
fragrances. The Company uses technologies at facilities around the
world to develop specialty food and beverage systems, cosmetic and
pharmaceutical systems, specialty inks and colors, and other
specialty and fine chemicals. The company is based in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.
SPORTSTRADE INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sportstrade, Inc. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Sportstrade, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04548 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sporttrade -- https://getsporttrade.com/ -- is America's most
dynamic sports trading platform.[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
STABLE ROAD: Schall Law Firm Reminds of September 13 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Stable Road
Acquisition Corp. ("Stable Road" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: SRAC)
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 October 7,
2020 and July 13, 2021, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 13, 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. Stable Road's merger target, Momentus, held a test of its
key technology in 2019 that failed to meet its criteria for
success. The government of the United States considered Momentus
CEO Mikhail Kokorich to be a national security threat, jeopardizing
the Company's potential commercial success. 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 Stable Road, investors suffered damages.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
TOYOTA MOTOR: Menzel Files Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A., Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sharon Menzel,
individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated
v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor North America,
Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00781-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla., Aug. 12, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability for
Deceptive Trade Practices.
Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. -- https://www.toyota.com/usa/ -- is
the North American Toyota sales, marketing, and distribution
subsidiary devoted to the United States market.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Lawrence Phillips, Esq.
NORMAND LAW PLLC
P.O. Box 140036
Orlando, FL 32814
Phone: (407) 603-6031
Email: jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com
TRANSUNION LLC: Greenberg Traurig Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher S. Dodrill, Esq., Phillip H. Hutchinson, Esq., Lisa M.
Simonetti, Esq., Sylvia E. Simson, Esq., David G. Thomas, Esq, and
Gregory A. Nylen, Esq., of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, in an article
for The National Law Review, discussed court rulings in the law
firm's Class Action Litigation Newsletter - Summer 2021: Supreme
Court, First Circuit, and Second Circuit.
Highlights from this issue include:
Supreme Court rules that class members who did not suffer concrete
harm do not have Article III standing to sue for violation of a
federal statute.
Supreme Court holds that generic nature of a misstatement is
important evidence to show no price impact at the class
certification stage, but that defendant bears the burden of
persuasion to prove a lack of price impact.
District court in the First Circuit (D. Mass.) grants motion to
strike nationwide class allegations at the pleading stage.
Second Circuit holds that a plaintiff cannot establish
injury-in-fact sufficient to confer Article III standing where
personally identifiable information was inadvertently disclosed and
not yet misused by any third party.
Third Circuit follows majority rule that American Pipe tolling
applies to plaintiffs who file individual suits before a ruling on
class certification.
Fourth Circuit finds ERISA plaintiff established Article III
standing and reverses denial of class certification.
District court in Fifth Circuit (N.D. Tex.) denies class
certification because individual issues predominate in case
alleging fraud and misrepresentation.
Divided Sixth Circuit panel affirms dismissal of proposed insurance
coverage class action.
Seventh Circuit affirms summary judgment for defendant in consumer
class action, finding no reasonable consumer would be materially
misled by alleged misrepresentations.
Eighth Circuit reverses class certification, holding that
plaintiff's expert's computer technology and algorithm cannot
overcome individualized inquiry into economic loss.
Ninth Circuit reverses approval of class action settlement, holding
that under revised Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(iii), a district court must
review a proposed class settlement for unfair collusion.
D.C. district court permits tolling of putative class members'
claims under American Pipe because they are based on the same acts
and will be proven by the same evidence as prior claims.
U.S. Supreme Court
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, __ S. Ct. __, 2021 WL 2599472 (U.S. June
25, 2021)
Supreme Court rules that class members who did not suffer "a
concrete harm" do not have Article III standing to pursue their
claims in federal court.
The Supreme Court addressed whether a violation of a federal
statute providing for a private right of action, without concrete
harm, will provide standing in federal court. In a 5-4 decision,
the Court reversed a Ninth Circuit decision approving a damages
award to 6,332 class members asserting that TransUnion violated the
Fair Credit Reporting Act by mislabeling their credit reports as a
"potential match" to a name on the list of terrorists, drug
traffickers, and other criminals maintained by the U.S. Treasury
Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control. These class members
comprised more than three-quarters of the total class, but their
claims were distinct in that TransUnion had only flagged their
credit reports internally, without distributing the reports to
potential creditors or any other third party.
Writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh's decision began by
stating "no concrete harm, no standing", and explained that
mislabeling, alone, was not a "concrete injury" needed to establish
Article III standing, because "the retention of information
lawfully obtained, without further disclosure, traditionally has
not provided the basis for a lawsuit in American courts." Thus,
"[t]he mere presence of an inaccuracy in an internal credit file,
if it is not disclosed to a third party, causes no concrete harm."
The risk of future harm resulting from potential distribution to
third parties also was not enough to establish concrete harm.
Though the Court recognized that someone "exposed to a risk of
future harm may pursue forward-looking, injunctive relief to
prevent the harm from occurring, … so long as the risk of harm is
sufficiently imminent and substantial," here, the plaintiffs sought
only money damages. And Justice Kavanaugh explained, "a plaintiff's
standing to seek injunctive relief does not necessarily mean that
the plaintiff has standing to seek retrospective damages." Id. at
20.
The dissent by Justice Thomas took issue with the fact that the
TransUnion credit reports erroneously flagged many law-abiding
people inaccurately and found that these actions were significant
enough. Among other things, the dissent noted that "each class
member established a violation of his or her private rights" and
therefore had "a sufficient injury to sue in federal court." The
second dissent -- authored by Justice Kagan and joined by Justice
Breyer and Justice Sotomayor -- joined Justice Thomas's dissent
with one caveat. In Justice Thomas's view, any violation of a
statutory right could give rise to Article III standing, while
Justice Kagan maintained that some concrete injury is still needed.
Even so, Justice Kagan proffered that courts should defer to
Congress's judgment "to determine when something causes harm or
risk in the real world," and that "[o]verriding an authorization to
sue is appropriate when but only when Congress could not reasonably
have thought that a suit will contribute to compensating or
preventing the harm at issue."
For more information on this case, see June 2021 GT Alert, 'No
Concrete Harm, No Standing': Supreme Court Reverses Judgment Where
Class Members Did Not Have Standing.
Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc. v. Ark. Teacher Ret. Sys., __ S. Ct. __,
2021 WL 2519035 (U.S. June 21, 2021)
Supreme Court holds that (1) the generic nature of a misstatement
is important evidence of price impact in a securities fraud case,
and the district court should consider all (not just some) evidence
probative of price impact at the class certification stage, and (2)
once a plaintiff invokes the Basic presumption of class-wide
reliance, the defendant bears the burden of persuasion to prove a
lack of price impact.
In this purported securities fraud suit against Goldman Sachs and
three of its former executives (collectively, GS), plaintiffs
alleged GS had misrepresented the existence of conflicts of
interest surrounding several collateralized debt obligation (CDO)
transactions involving subprime mortgages, and that the plaintiffs
were purportedly injured after those conflicts were revealed in,
among other things, a 2010 SEC complaint, and GS's stock price
dropped. After discovery, plaintiffs moved for class certification,
invoking the presumption of class-wide reliance established by the
Supreme Court in Basic Inc v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988). The
district court granted the motion and held that GS had failed to
meet its burden to rebut the presumption, notwithstanding evidence
that GS's stock had not decreased on at least 34 occasions when the
media had reported on the alleged conflicts prior to the filing of
the SEC complaint.
On appeal, the Second Circuit unanimously vacated the decision,
reasoning that the district court had failed to apply the proper
standard in considering whether the presumption invoked by
plaintiffs had been rebutted (i.e., by a preponderance of the
evidence) and should have considered evidence that GS's stock price
had not decreased when the media reported on the company's alleged
conflicts of interest prior to 2010. The Second Circuit also
reasoned that a defendant seeking to rebut the Basic presumption
bears the ultimate burden of persuasion. On remand, the district
court granted class certification again, GS appealed, and the
Second Circuit affirmed.
The Supreme Court held that the Second Circuit correctly held that
a defendant bears the burden of persuasion to prove a lack of price
impact once the Basic presumption is invoked by a plaintiff. In so
holding, the Court disagreed that a defendant need only produce
"any competent evidence of a lack of price impact" to rebut the
Basic presumption at the class certification stage, interpreting
its prior opinions as having assigned to the defendant the burden
of persuasion with respect to price impact, too.
The Supreme Court also confirmed that the generic nature of a
misstatement is not only relevant to price impact, but "often will
be important evidence of price impact because, as a rule of thumb,
'a more-general statement will affect a security's price less than
a more specific statement on the same question.'" The Court
repeatedly emphasized that courts must consider "all" evidence
probative of the price impact issue, "regardless of whether the
evidence is also relevant to a merits question like materiality."
Finding it "unclear" whether the Second Circuit considered GS's
evidence -- in particular, expert testimony regarding the generic
nature of the alleged misstatements -- the Court vacated the
decision below and remanded with an instruction for the Second
Circuit to "take into account all record evidence relevant to price
impact."
Justice Sotomayor concurred in part and dissented in part. Justice
Sotomayor agreed with the Court's answers to the questions
presented but disagreed with the Court's judgment to vacate and
remand because she believed the Second Circuit properly considered
the generic nature of GS's statements.
Justice Gorsuch, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito also concurred
in part and dissented in part in a separate opinion. These justices
disagreed that the defendant should bear the burden of persuasion
on price impact and characterized the majority's ruling as the
first time the Court had ever placed a burden of persuasion on the
defendant with respect to an element of a plaintiff's case.
For more information on this case, see June 2021 GT Alert,
Rebutting the Presumption of Class-Wide Reliance at the Class
Certification Stage (Part II): Key Takeaways from the Supreme
Court's Decision in Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher
Ret. Sys. (2021).
First Circuit
Downing v. Keurig Green Mt., Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110334 (D.
Mass. June 11, 2021)
District court strikes nationwide putative class claims at pleading
stage.
Plaintiff asserted that the defendant deceptively advertised its
products as recyclable when they allegedly were not according to
federal regulations and in violation of Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 93A -- the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. The
plaintiff's complaint proposed two classes -- one consisting of
persons who purchased the products in Massachusetts and one
consisting of all product purchasers nationwide. After expressing
caution about striking class-action allegations at the pleading
stage, the district court struck the Chapter 93A nationwide class
allegations from the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(f). In doing so, the district court explained that,
although Chapter 93A does not require a plaintiff to reside in
Massachusetts, courts consider where the plaintiff acted in
reliance on the alleged misrepresentations, where the plaintiff
received the alleged misrepresentations, where the defendant made
the alleged misrepresentations, and the domicile, residence,
nationality, place of incorporation, and place of business of the
parties when assessing whether a plaintiff may proceed under
Chapter 93A. The district court placed greater emphasis on the
"place of reliance" factor than the defendant's principal place of
business and concluded that, because the alleged misrepresentations
were made on the product packages themselves, the plaintiff (and
putative class members) would have seen and acted in reliance on
those alleged misrepresentations outside of Massachusetts, meaning
they were not covered by Chapter 93A for those residing outside of
Massachusetts.
Second Circuit
McMorris v. Carlos Lopez & Assocs., LLC, 995 F.3d 295 (2d Cir.
2021)
Second Circuit holds that a plaintiff cannot establish an injury in
fact sufficient to confer Article III standing where their personal
information was inadvertently disclosed and not yet misused by any
third party, and declines to consider protective measures taken as
part of the standing analysis.
This case arose out of an email sent by mistake to all
approximately 65 employees of Carlos Lopez & Associates (CLA). The
email contained sensitive personally identifiable information (PII)
of approximately 130 then-current and former employees. CLA emailed
the then-current employees to address the accidental email but did
not contact any of the former employees regarding the disclosure or
take any other corrective action. Three individuals whose
information had been shared then filed a putative class action
complaint. Notably, plaintiffs did not allege that their PII had
been shared outside of CLA or misused by third parties, or that
they were the victims of fraud or identity theft, but rather,
claimed that "because their PII had been disclosed to all of CLA's
then-current employees, they were 'at imminent risk of suffering
identity theft' and becoming the victims of 'unknown but certainly
impending future crimes.'"
CLA moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing, among other
things. The parties reached a class settlement, but in advance of
the fairness hearing, the district court sua sponte ordered further
briefing on the issue of Article III standing. The district court
ultimately found that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing
because they failed to allege '"an injury that is concrete and
particularized and certainly impending." As such, the court
dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, noting
it was "powerless to approve the parties' proposed class
settlement."
On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed, finding that the alleged
"increased risk of identity theft" was not sufficient to confer
Article III standing. In so ruling, the court was persuaded by,
among other things, the fact that the data disclosure at issue was
inadvertent (and not a cyberattack) and plaintiffs did not allege
that their PII had been misused. The court also declined to
consider the proactive measures plaintiffs took to protect
themselves in assessing standing, noting that their efforts against
a hypothetical future threat "cannot create an injury."
Pirone v. City of New York, No. 17-cv-3070, 2021 WL 2184894
(E.D.N.Y. May 28, 2021)
District court denies plaintiff's request to amend a complaint to
include putative class allegations due to the belated nature of the
request and the prejudice it would cause.
Plaintiff brought an action alleging that a New York police officer
used excessive force while arresting him, and that the New York
Police Department unlawfully handcuffed him during his subsequent
hospitalization based on a policy requiring that, among other
things, all hospitalized suspects be handcuffed. Three years after
he commenced his action on a pro se basis, and more than a year
after fact discovery closed, plaintiff moved to amend his complaint
to certify a class of all hospitalized prisoners subject to the
purported handcuffing policy.
In denying the request, the district court explained that
prejudice is "perhaps the most important factor" bearing on the
Rule 15(a) analysis. It ultimately held that "[t]he hour is late
for plaintiff to seek to transform this case into a class action,"
highlighting that plaintiff waited to bring this request until
"more than a year after the close of fact discovery, more than two
years after his counsel first appeared, and nearly three years
after he commenced the action." The court explained that parties
may not "strategically withhold all notice that they plan to move
for class certification until they deem it most advantageous."
The court also noted that transforming the case into a class action
would cause defendant undue prejudice because it would
"fundamentally transform the litigation in a manner burdensome to
defendants" as a class action is "more costly, more time-consuming,
and exposes defendants to more substantial recoveries than an
individual [] suit."
Chen v. Hunan Manor Enter., No. 17-cv-802, 2021 WL 2282642
(S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2021)
Report and recommendation denying plaintiffs' motion for class
certification based solely on the inadequacy of proposed class
counsel.
Nine former employees of defendants' restaurants alleged that
defendants failed to pay employees minimum wage, overtime, and
spread of hours pay and failed to give employees a wage notice at
the time of hire. Plaintiffs moved for class certification, but the
Magistrate Judge denied the motion solely based on plaintiffs'
failure to demonstrate that their counsel would adequately
represent the class.
Defendants argued that plaintiffs' proposed class counsel was
inadequate because the conduct of counsel, John Troy, and his firm,
Troy Law PLLC, in previous cases and in the current litigation was
inadequate. The Magistrate Judge agreed, citing numerous reasons.
First, the Second Circuit previously upheld the decertification of
a class due to inadequate representation by Troy Law and John Troy
individually in Jin v. Shanghai Original, Inc., 990 F.3d 251 (2d
Cir. 2021). The court noted that the derelictions described in Jin
could by themselves have justified the denial of the class
certification motion in this case. Second, another court recently
rejected Troy Law as class counsel in Rodpracha v. Pongsri Thai
Rest. Corp., 2021 WL 1733515 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2021), and other
courts have imposed sanctions as a result of Troy Law's conduct and
the conduct of its attorneys. In other cases, this proposed class
counsel was found to "repeatedly fail[ ] to comply" with court
deadlines, fail to file a revised motion for default judgment, and
"fail[ ] to submit jointly proposed jury instructions, a jointly
proposed verdict sheet, or exhibits in usable form." The Magistrate
Judge found these other cases compelling evidence of Mr. Troy and
Troy Law's "lack of adequacy to represent a class."
As for proposed class counsel's conduct in this case, the court
pointed to the fact that counsel "cancelled multiple depositions
for plaintiffs at the last minute in the case, sometimes on the day
of the scheduled depositions" and missed various court deadlines.
In addition, counsel sought to add six new defendants to the case,
and the court denied the request due to counsel's unexplained
failure to pursue the remedy diligently. The court found these
tactics and unexplained delays rendered proposed class counsel
inadequate.
Aaron Van Nostrand, Kara E. Angeletti, Layal Bishara, Andrea N.
Chidyllo, Gregory Franklin, Brian D. Straw also contributed to this
article. [GN]
TRUCK INSURANCE: 54-40 Brewing Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as 54-40 Brewing Company LLC, a Washington limited
liability company, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Truck Insurance Exchange, Case No. 21-00002-01337-34
was removed from the Thurston County Superior Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 13,
2021).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-05586 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.
Truck Insurance Exchange -- https://www.farmers.com/ -- is one of
the insurers comprising Farmers Insurance Group.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle A Sturm, Esq.
Nicholas A. Thede, Esq.
FOREMAN STURM & THEDE LLP
PO BOX 13098
Portland, OR 97213
Phone: (503) 477-4693
Email: kyle@foremansturm.com
nick.thede@foremansturm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jared Kiess, Esq.
Ronald J Clark, Esq.
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY (SEA)
925 Fourth Ave., Ste. 800
Seattle, WA 98104-1157
Phone: (206) 292-8930
Email: Jared.Kiess@bullivant.com
ron.clark@bullivant.com
TRUCK INSURANCE: R2B2 Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as R2B2 LLC doing business as: Russell and Bode
DDS, PLLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Truck Insurance Exchange, Case No. 21-00002-00091-34
was removed from the Thurston County Superior Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 13,
2021).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-05585 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.
Truck Insurance Exchange -- https://www.farmers.com/ -- is one of
the insurers comprising Farmers Insurance Group.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy C. Williams-Derry, Esq.
Ian S Birk, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK LLP (WA)
1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 3200
Seattle, WA 98101-3052
Phone: (206) 623-1900
Email: awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
Ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jared Kiess, Esq.
Ronald J Clark, Esq.
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY (SEA)
925 Fourth Ave., Ste. 800
Seattle, WA 98104-1157
Phone: (206) 292-8930
Email: Jared.Kiess@bullivant.com
ron.clark@bullivant.com
UNITED STATES: Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over OPT Delays
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lindsey H. Steinberg, Esq., of Mintz, in an article for The
National Law Review, reports that USCIS recently settled a class
action lawsuit regarding lengthy delays in processing of Employment
Authorization Document (EAD) applications for individuals in F-1
student status. The settlement is welcome news to F-1 students who
have been delayed in their ability to begin work following
graduation due to long delays at USCIS.
Background
A class action lawsuit, Li v. USCIS, filed in February 2021 against
the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has been
settled. The lawsuit alleged an impermissible delay in processing
employment authorization document applications for post-graduate
optional practical training (OPT) as well as STEM Extension OPT.
Eighteen named F-1 students who had applied or planned to apply for
employment authorization asserted that the delay in processing
caused them and other similarly situated students irreparable harm.
This harm included potentially being subject to removal from the
U.S. when the grace period following their education program ended
as well as losing job offers, income, health insurance, and
opportunities to register for the H-1B lottery.
Details of the USCIS Settlement
On July 23, 2021, the District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio Eastern Division issued a consent order, which outlines the
terms of agreement between the parties. Key USCIS concessions
agreed to in the settlement include:
For applications for OPT and STEM extensions filed between October
1, 2020, through October 31, 2021, USCIS commits to processing
within 120 days. Processing means that the application will be
approved, denied or a Request for Evidence issued within 120 days
of filing.
The interim relief announced on February 26, 2021, continues for
all cases filed between October 1, 2020, and October 31, 2021. This
includes:
A full 12 months of OPT irrespective of the requirement OPT be
completed within 14 months of graduation.
OPT will be granted for the full period recommended by the DSO,
irrespective of the time of adjudication.
If an EAD has been issued for less than these time periods, USCIS
will issue a corrected EAD upon request.
Rejected applications which were originally submitted on time can
be resubmitted and will be processed as if received on the original
date (the full period of OPT will be granted, but the original I-20
will be accepted without the requirement of a new I-20).
Requests for Evidence will be issued instead of a denial for
missing or deficient signatures.
OPT applications can be submitted up to 120 days (instead of 90)
before completion of the program until October 31, 2021.
In addition to the 18 named plaintiffs, this settlement will offer
relief to any similarly situated students, who are undoubtedly
greatly relieved by this settlement. [GN]
UNITED THERAPEUTICS: MSP Recovery Suit Transferred to Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
United Therapeutics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the Court granted
the company's motion to transfer the class action suit intiated by
MSP Recovery Claims, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.
On July 27, 2020, MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; MSPA Claims 1,
LLC; and Series PMPI, a designated series of MAO-MSO Recovery II,
LLC (Plaintiffs) filed a Class Action Complaint against Caring
Voices Coalition, Inc. (CVC) and the company in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The Complaint alleges that we violated the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act and various state laws by
coordinating with CVC when making donations to a pulmonary arterial
hypertension fund so that those donations would go towards
copayment obligations for Medicare patients taking drugs
manufactured and marketed by the company.
Plaintiffs claim to have received assignments from various Medicare
Advantage health plans and other insurance entities that allow them
to bring this lawsuit on behalf of those entities to recover
allegedly inflated amounts they paid for the company's drugs.
On April 6, 2021, the Court granted the company's motion to
transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.
Two members of the putative class, Humana Inc. and UnitedHealthcare
Insurance Company, have informed the company that they may bring
claims directly against it to recover alleged overpayments.
United Therapeutics said, "We intend to vigorously defend against
this lawsuit."
Silver Spring, Md.-based United Therapeutics Corporation develops
and commercializes therapeutic products for patients with chronic
and life-threatening diseases. The Company offers products
primarily in three therapeutic areas, including cardiovascular,
cancer, and infectious diseases.
VALARIS LIMITED: Zhang Files Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------
Valaris Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that a notice of voluntary
dismissal was filed in the class action suit initiated by Xiaoyuan
Zhang.
On August 20, 2019, plaintiff Xiaoyuan Zhang, a purported Valaris
shareholder, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Valaris
shareholders against Valaris plc and certain of our executive
officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws.
After the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, the
case was stayed in light of the Valaris plc bankruptcy filing. Lead
plaintiff submitted a general unsecured claim in Valaris plc's
chapter 11 case.
On June 10, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court granted Valaris plc's motion
to subordinate the claim to a class that was not entitled to
receive any recovery in the bankruptcy.
On June 16, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court also granted Valaris plc's
motion to enforce the releases and injunction under its plan of
reorganization and require lead plaintiff to dismiss the lawsuit as
to the remaining defendants.
Accordingly, on July 8, 2021, lead plaintiff filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal of his claims with prejudice.
Valaris Limited a leading provider of offshore contract drilling
services to the international oil and gas industry.
VALE SA: Plan for Distribution of Securities Suit Settlement OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: Vale S.A. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15
Civ. 09539 (GHW), Consolidated with Case No. 16 Civ. 00658 (GHW)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Gregory H. Woods of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York approved the Lead Plaintiffs'
Motion for Approval of Distribution Plan.
The matter was brought before the Court by way of the Lead
Plaintiffs' motion to determine whether the proposed Distribution
Plan of the Net Settlement Fund created by the Settlement achieved
in the Action should be approved.
Judge Woods, having reviewed and considered all the materials and
arguments submitted in support of the motion, finds that the notice
of Lead Plaintiffs' motion for approval of the proposed Plan of
Allocation was given to all the Settlement Class Members who could
be identified with reasonable effort. He says, the form and method
of notifying the Settlement Class of the motion for approval of the
proposed Plan of Allocation satisfied the requirements of Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States
Constitution (including the Due Process Clause), the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4,
as amended, and all other applicable law and rules; constituted the
best notice practicable under the circumstances; and constituted
due and sufficient notice to all persons and entities entitled
thereto.
Accordingly, the Judge adopted the following:
a. The administrative recommendations of the Court-approved
Claims Administrator, JND Legal Administration (JND), to accept the
Timely Eligible Claims stated in Exhibit E to the Segura
Declaration and the Late But Otherwise Eligible Claims stated in
Exhibit F to the Segura Declaration; and
b. The Claims Administrator's administrative recommendations
to reject the Rejected Claims, as stated in Exhibit G to the Segura
Declaration, including the Disputed Claims discussed in paragraph
32 of the Segura Declaration and Exhibit D to the Segura
Declaration.
JND is directed to conduct the Initial Distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, after deducting all payments previously allowed
and the payments approved by the Order, and after deducting the
payment of any estimated taxes, the costs of preparing appropriate
tax returns, and any escrow fees, while maintaining a 5% reserve
from the Net Settlement Fund to address any tax liability or claims
administration-related contingencies that may arise.
Specifically, as stated in paragraph 45(a) of the Segura
Declaration: (1) JND will calculate award amounts for all
Authorized Claimants as if the entire Net Settlement Fund were to
be distributed now. In accordance with the Court-approved Plan of
Allocation, JND will calculate each Authorized Claimant's pro rata
share of the Net Settlement Fund based on the amount of the
Authorized Claimant's Recognized Claim in comparison to the total
Recognized Claims of all Authorized Claimants; (2) JND will then,
in accordance with the terms of the Court-approved Plan of
Allocation, eliminate from the Initial Distribution any Authorized
Claimant whose total pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund is
less than $10. These Claimants will not receive any payment from
the Net Settlement Fund and will be so notified by JND; (3) After
eliminating Claimants who would have received less than $10, JND
will recalculate the pro rata shares of the Net Settlement Fund for
Authorized Claimants who would have received $10 or more based on
the amount of the Authorized Claimant's Recognized Claim in
comparison to the total Recognized Claims of all Authorized
Claimants who would have received $10 or more. This pro rata share
is the Authorized Claimant's Distribution Amount; (4) Authorized
Claimants whose Distribution Amount calculates to less than $200
will be paid their full Distribution Amount in the Initial
Distribution (Claims Paid in Full).
These Authorized Claimants will receive no additional funds in
subsequent distributions; (5) 95% of the remaining balance of the
Net Settlement Fund will be distributed pro rata to Authorized
Claimants whose Distribution Amount calculates to $200 or more. The
remaining 5% of the Net Settlement Fund will be held in the Reserve
to address any tax liability or claims administration-related
contingencies that may arise following the Initial Distribution. To
the extent the Reserve is not depleted, the remainder will be
distributed in the Second Distribution described in the Order.
In order to encourage Authorized Claimants to cash their checks
promptly, all distribution checks will bear the following notation:
"CASH PROMPTLY. VOID AND SUBJECT TO REDISTRIBUTION IF NOT CASHED BY
[DATE 90 DAYS AFTER ISSUE DATE]." The Lead Counsel and JND are
authorized to take appropriate action to locate and contact
Authorized Claimants who have not cashed their checks within said
time as detailed in paragraph 45(b) footnote 9 of the Segura
Declaration.
Authorized Claimants who do not cash their Initial Distribution
checks within the time allotted or on the conditions stated in
paragraph 45(b) footnote 9 of the Segura Declaration will
irrevocably forfeit all recovery from the Settlement, and the funds
allocated to these stale-dated checks will be available to be
distributed to other Authorized Claimants in the Second
Distribution. Similarly, Authorized Claimants who do not cash their
distribution checks in the Second Distribution or in subsequent
distributions, should such distributions occur, within the time
allotted or on the conditions stated in paragraph 45(b) footnote 9
of the Segura Declaration will irrevocably forfeit any further
recovery from the Net Settlement Fund.
After JND has made reasonable and diligent efforts to have
Authorized Claimants cash their Initial Distribution checks
(provided in paragraph 45(b) footnote 9 of the Segura Declaration).
but not earlier than seven months after the Initial Distribution,
JND will, after consulting with the Lead Counsel, conduct the
Second Distribution, in which any amount remaining in the Net
Settlement Fund after the Initial Distribution, will be distributed
to all Authorized Claimants in the Initial Distribution (other than
Claims Paid in Full) who cashed their Initial Distribution check
and are entitled to receive at least $10 from the Second
Distribution based on their pro rata share of the remaining funds.
Additional distributions, after deduction of costs and expenses as
described and subject to the same conditions, may occur thereafter
in six-month intervals until the Lead Counsel, in consultation with
JND, determines that further distribution is not cost-effective.
When the Lead Counsel, in consultation with JND, determines that
further distribution of the funds remaining in the Net Settlement
Fund is not cost-effective, if sufficient funds remain to warrant
the processing of Claims received after March 12, 2021, those
Claims will be processed, and any otherwise valid Claims received
after March 12, 2021, as well as any earlier-received Claims for
which an adjustment was received after March 12, 2021, which
resulted in an increased Recognized Claim amount, will be paid in
accordance with the Order. If any funds remain in the Net
Settlement Fund after payment of these late or late-adjusted
Claims, the remaining balance of the Net Settlement Fund, after
payment of any unpaid fees or expenses incurred in administering
the Net Settlement Fund and after the payment of any estimated
taxes, the costs of preparing appropriate tax returns, and any
escrow fees, will be contributed to the National Consumer Law
Center (NCLC).
No new Claims may be accepted after March 12, 2021, and no further
adjustments to Claims received on or before March 12, 2021, that
would result in an increased Recognized Claim amount may be made
for any reason after March 12, 2021, subject to the following
exception. If Claims are received or modified after March 12, 2021,
that would have been eligible for payment or additional payment
under the Court-approved Plan of Allocation if timely received,
then, at the time that the Lead Counsel, in consultation with JND,
determines a distribution is not cost-effective, and after payment
of any unpaid fees or expenses incurred in connection with
administering the Net Settlement Fund and after deducting the
payment of any estimated taxes, the costs of preparing appropriate
tax returns, and any escrow fees, these Claimants, at the
discretion of the Lead Counsel, may be paid their distribution
amounts or additional distribution amounts on a pro rata basis that
would bring them into parity with other Authorized Claimants who
have cashed all their prior distribution checks to the extent
possible.
All of JND's fees and expenses incurred in the administration of
the Settlement and estimated to be incurred in connection with the
Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund as stated in the invoices
attached as Exhibit H to the Segura Declaration are approved, and
Lead Counsel is directed to pay the outstanding balance of
$133,797.42 out of the Settlement Fund to JND.
Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, JND may destroy the paper
copies of the Claims and all supporting documentation one year
after the Initial Distribution, and one year after all funds have
been distributed may destroy electronic copies of the same.
The Court retains jurisdiction to consider any further applications
concerning the administration of the Settlement, and any other and
further relief that the Court deems appropriate.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mtwr5h9j from Leagle.com.
VALEANT PHARMA: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher S. Dodrill, Esq., Phillip H. Hutchinson, Esq., Lisa M.
Simonetti, Esq., Sylvia E. Simson, Esq., David G. Thomas, Esq, and
Gregory A. Nylen, Esq., of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, discussed court
rulings in the law firm's Class Action Litigation Newsletter -
Summer 2021: Third, Fourth, and Fifth Circuit.
Highlights from this issue include:
Supreme Court rules that class members who did not suffer concrete
harm do not have Article III standing to sue for violation of a
federal statute.
Supreme Court holds that generic nature of a misstatement is
important evidence to show no price impact at the class
certification stage, but that defendant bears the burden of
persuasion to prove a lack of price impact.
District court in the First Circuit (D. Mass.) grants motion to
strike nationwide class allegations at the pleading stage.
Second Circuit holds that a plaintiff cannot establish
injury-in-fact sufficient to confer Article III standing where
personally identifiable information was inadvertently disclosed and
not yet misused by any third party.
Third Circuit follows majority rule that American Pipe tolling
applies to plaintiffs who file individual suits before a ruling on
class certification.
Fourth Circuit finds ERISA plaintiff established Article III
standing and reverses denial of class certification.
District court in Fifth Circuit (N.D. Tex.) denies class
certification because individual issues predominate in case
alleging fraud and misrepresentation.
Divided Sixth Circuit panel affirms dismissal of proposed insurance
coverage class action.
Seventh Circuit affirms summary judgment for defendant in consumer
class action, finding no reasonable consumer would be materially
misled by alleged misrepresentations.
Eighth Circuit reverses class certification, holding that
plaintiff's expert's computer technology and algorithm cannot
overcome individualized inquiry into economic loss.
Ninth Circuit reverses approval of class action settlement, holding
that under revised Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(iii), a district court must
review a proposed class settlement for unfair collusion.
D.C. district court permits tolling of putative class members'
claims under American Pipe because they are based on the same acts
and will be proven by the same evidence as prior claims.
Third Circuit
Aly v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc, No. 19-3326, 2021
WL 2448108 (3d Cir. June 16, 2021)
Third Circuit follows majority rule that American Pipe tolling
applies to plaintiffs who file individual suits prior to a ruling
on class certification.
Plaintiffs filed a putative securities class action against a
pharmaceutical company. Prior to a ruling on class certification,
certain putative class members filed individual lawsuits. The
district court dismissed the individual complaints as untimely
under the two-year statute of limitations and found that American
Pipe tolling did not apply to individual complaints filed before a
ruling on class certification.
The Third Circuit reversed. The court recognized that while the
U.S. Supreme Court had not addressed the issue, the Second, Ninth,
and Tenth Circuits had held that American Pipe tolls the
limitations period for individual claims filed both before and
after the certification stage. Only the Sixth Circuit held
otherwise, although that circuit had called that conclusion into
question. The Third Circuit adopted the majority rule: "American
Pipe makes clear that the filing of a class action is the operative
event that tolls the limitations period, and that once the period
is tolled, it remains tolled for all putative members until they
are no longer part of the class. The Court has not held that
anything further, such as a certification denial, is required to
benefit from tolling. Like the majority of our sister circuits, we
see no reason not to take the Supreme Court's words at face
value."
The panel found that the rationale behind American Pipe was served
by the ruling. While the statute of limitations is intended to
prevent the "surprise" revival of old claims, that was not an issue
where defendants "were undisputedly aware of the substantive claims
at issue for more than two years before the Individual Complaint
was filed." Also, denying tolling would serve "no compelling
purpose" because it would "lock" putative members into the class
until after certification. The court concluded it made sense to
allow individuals "to promptly file their individual actions,
rather than indefinitely delay[ing] the resolution of those claims
for no good reason."
The panel rejected defendants' arguments that post-American Pipe
Supreme Court jurisprudence compelled a different result. While
recognizing that "the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence tends to
underscore the importance of judicial economy," "we cannot construe
the doctrine in a way that would undermine its primary purpose --
to protect the individual rights of putative members." Finally, the
panel found that the district court's decision was
counterintuitive, in that individuals who filed suit earlier would
be time-barred but those who filed after a class certification
decision would not be.
Baskin v. P.C. Richard & Son, LLC, 246 N.J. 157 (2021)
New Jersey Supreme Court reverses motion to dismiss class action
allegations, relying on lenient standard of review.
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in New Jersey state court
seeking statutory damages from retailers, based on willful
noncompliance with the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
(FACTA) by printing customers' credit card or debit card expiration
dates on their receipts. Defendants moved to dismiss the class
allegations, and the trial court granted the motion, finding: (1)
plaintiffs failed to allege numerosity because they did not specify
how many members were in the class; (2) predominance was not
adequately alleged because some class members may have suffered
actual damages and liability would therefore have to be determined
on a case-by-case basis; and (3) superiority was not adequately
alleged because FACTA's statutory award sufficiently incentivized
plaintiffs to bring suit individually. The Appellate Division
affirmed the dismissal, but the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed.
The New Jersey Supreme Court emphasized the procedural posture of
the case and the lenient standard of review involved: on a motion
to dismiss, a reviewing court must examine "the legal sufficiency
of the facts alleged on the face of the complaint," giving the
plaintiff the benefit of "every reasonable inference of fact,"
searching the complaint thoroughly "and with liberality to
ascertain whether the fundament of a cause of action may be gleaned
even from an obscure statement of claim, opportunity being given to
amend if necessary." Under that standard, the Court ruled that
plaintiffs adequately pled the class action elements.
Plaintiffs adequately pled numerosity by stating that "there are,
at a minimum, thousands" of members of the class. The Court
rejected the lower courts' conclusion that numerosity must be pled
with specificity. Plaintiffs also adequately pled predominance
because they alleged that defendants' non-compliance was
"consistent" and "the common nucleus of operative facts is, as
plaintiffs pled, whether defendants programmed their equipment to
print the expiration dates of customers' credit/debit cards on
receipts; the answer to that question will apply to all class
members."
Finally, the Court rejected defendants' argument that plaintiffs
failed to adequately allege superiority because plaintiffs did not
explain why statutory damages, which could be recovered in small
claims court, were an inadequate means to redress any FACTA
violation. The Court credited plaintiffs' allegations that "a class
action is superior because individual statutory damages will be
relatively small" and "even if individual litigation were brought,
the class action is still superior because individual claims would
‘present the potential for varying, inconsistent or contradictory
judgments.'" In so holding, the Court distinguished an earlier
decision finding that small claims court was a superior forum for
adjudicating TCPA claims, finding that it is more difficult to
establish a FACTA claim than a TCPA claim.
The Court made clear that "we are not certifying the class."
Rather, the Court remanded "the matter for the parties to conduct
discovery related to class action certification."
Fourth Circuit
Peters v. Aetna Inc., No. 19-2085, 2021 WL 2448108 (4th Cir. June
22, 2021)
Fourth Circuit finds ERISA plaintiff established Article III
standing and reverses denial of class certification.
Plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging that defendants
breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by bundling an
administrative fee into the rates for health benefits. The district
court denied class certification on commonality and
ascertainability grounds, finding that plaintiff failed to
establish that there was a class of participants who actually were
harmed, and that some participants actually benefit from the
challenged conduct.
The Fourth Circuit reversed. The panel first addressed plaintiff's
Article III standing, concluding that plaintiff adequately
demonstrated a financial injury - i.e., plaintiff paid more on
individual claims than she otherwise would have but for the
challenged conduct - to establish standing under her restitution
claim. But even if she could not show such an injury, plaintiff
still had standing to seek a surcharge, disgorgement, and
declaratory and injunctive relief.
As to class certification, the panel found that the "district court
analyzed ascertainability and commonality too rigidly."
Specifically, the district court based its ascertainability
conclusion on a determination that plaintiff lacked any financial
injury. Yet the district court ignored the viability of plaintiff's
other remedies for surcharge, disgorgement, and declaratory and
injunctive relief. Thus, the panel instructed the district court to
"reexamine the ascertainability prong" based on the totality of
plaintiff's claimed remedies. Similarly, as to commonality, the
panel found that the district court erroneously ignored the
totality of plaintiff's claims. Also, the panel observed that the
common issues of fact as to defendant's conduct "may be sufficient
to meet the commonality requirement."
State ex rel. Health Care Alliance, Inc. v. O'Briant, No. 20-1029,
2021 WL 2432126 (W. Va. June 15, 2021)
West Virginia Supreme Court rejects pre-certification discovery of
identities of putative class members.
Plaintiff filed a putative class action against defendants in West
Virginia state court, alleging they sent collection letters in
violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act.
In pre-certification discovery, plaintiff sought the identities of
all West Virginia individuals to whom defendants sent similar
collection letters, as well as the name of the original creditor,
account number, amount allegedly owed, and current balance. The
trial court granted plaintiff's motion to compel that information,
reasoning that it "goes towards proving at the certification stage
common questions of fact or law, typical claims or common defenses,
i.e., 'commonality' and 'typicality.'"
The West Virginia Supreme Court reversed the order compelling
discovery. The Court recognized the distinction, as noted by the
U.S. Supreme Court in Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S.
340 (1978), between attempts to seek the identification of class
members for purposes of class notice as opposed to other purposes.
Because the request here was made pre-certification, it was not for
purposes of serving class notice. The Court then analyzed whether
the request sought information relevant to the class certification
requirements and concluded it did not. The identity of class
members was not relevant to the commonality element of the class
certification test because the common issues identified in the
complaint involved the conduct of defendants, not the identities or
addresses of potential class members. Nor was that information
relevant to the predominance analysis because plaintiff sought to
certify a class of all individuals who received a letter similar to
plaintiff, not "potential class members treated at a particular
facility or who lived in a particular city or town," for whom names
and addresses would be relevant. Finally, while the number of
individuals who received a similar letter would be relevant to the
numerosity element, the identities and details regarding the debts
of those individuals were not relevant to numerosity.
Accordingly, the Court concluded "that the circuit court clearly
erred and exceeded its legitimate powers in compelling [defendants]
to disclose at this pre-certification stage names and addresses of
non-litigant, third-party individuals to whom debt collection
letters were sent, dates of letters sent by [defendants], names of
the original creditors, the original creditors' account or
reference numbers, the amount owed or allegedly owed and the
current balance owed."
Fifth Circuit
Miller v. Grand Canyon Univ., Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-00652-P,
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94800 (N.D. Tex. May 19, 2021)
District court denies class certification in putative fraud and
RICO class action against online university because individualized
issues overwhelmed the commonality and typicality inquiries under
Rule 23(a) or predominance and superiority inquiries under Rule
23(b)(3).
An online graduate student and Texas resident, Miller, sued Grand
Canyon University (GCU), claiming that GCU misled its students into
believing that its graduate programs were accredited in each state
where its students reside. On behalf of a putative class of "[a]ll
Grand Canyon University students who have been enrolled in an
online professional graduate degree or certificate program that is
not accredited in the state where they are employed or, if not
employed, where they reside," Miller asserted claims for fraudulent
omission, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, and
for violation of the federal RICO act, the Arizona RICO Act, and
the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act.
Miller filed a motion to certify the class, and the district court
denied the motion. Considering Rule 23(a)'s requirements of
numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy, the district
court concluded that Miller had failed to establish commonality or
typicality. As for commonality, the court recognized that while
Miller had identified common questions that would apply to the
entire putative class, she had failed to show that the class action
would generate "common answers apt to drive the resolution of the
litigation," as required by the Supreme Court's Dukes decision. The
district court explained that "determining whether GCU committed
fraud or misrepresentation as to Miller does not establish that GCU
did so vis-à-vis every putative class member." Further, the
questions that Miller presented could not be answered from a single
source. As for typicality, the court explained that the same
analysis applied. Miller's fraud claims were unique to her, and she
had not established any uniform misrepresentations to the putative
class as a whole. So, issues of reliance and injury would differ
from person to person. Miller's unique facts also raised defenses
that would apply to her alone.
In that same vein, the court found that Miller failed to carry her
burden of proving predominance and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3).
Emphasizing that "a fraud class action cannot be certified when
individual reliance will be an issue," the court struggled to
envision "what a trial would look like." The court reasoned,
"[v]ariations as to the degree of reliance by prospective students
on statements that may or may not have been made makes class
certification improper." Moreover, "[t]he varied and individualized
levels of reliance, derived from dynamic conversations, make this
case improper for class certification due to the individual issues
relating to reliance." Finally, the court ruled that certification
under Rule 23(b)(2) would be denied because the proper remedy for
any violation was money damages, not prospective injunctive relief.
[GN]
WALMART INC: Barton Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Andrew L. Barton, individually and on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Walmart Inc., Case No.
2021CH03273 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on Aug. 13, 2021).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-04329 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Walmart Inc. -- https://corporate.walmart.com/ -- is an American
multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from
the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert E. Earles, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
444 W Lake Street, Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 881-6500
Email: rearles@cooley.com
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action in N.J. Over Inspection Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Diya Patel, writing for Benzinga, reports that Wells Fargo & Co.
has been hit with a class-action lawsuit accusing them of charging
unnecessary inspection fees in a New Jersey District Court. This
lawsuit comes 13 years after another class-action suit that accused
Wells Fargo of the same racketeering activities in Iowa.
What Happened: In a complaint filed on August 5th, Wells Fargo was
made aware of official class action litigation against them. Now,
they must respond to the claims that they charged mortgage
borrowers millions in unnecessary property inspection fees to
increase profits.
The suit asserts that when mortgage owners were charged, inspection
fees were "hidden" and labeled as "other charges" to avoid
detection by mortgage owners. The suit is led by a mortgage owner
named Jane Hart.
Hart says that she and other mortgage borrowers were subject to
undue "difficult financial straits, putting their homes in jeopardy
and, in some instances, resulting in bankruptcy," at the hands of
Wells Fargo.
There is not yet a compensation number attached to the suit.
However, for reference, in 2008, Wells Fargo was served with a
similar suit that settled for a whopping $26 million dollars. The
case, Young v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al., also accused Wells Fargo
of making borrowers pay for unnecessary inspections.
Why It's Important: If the complaint is approved by the court, and
the case eventually goes to trial, this will be another blow to
Wells Fargo's already shaky reputation. The bank has become
synonymous with scandal.
Just in the past 5 years, Wells Fargo has paid fines of $185
million for the infamous fake accounts scandal, a $1 billion
settlement for charging loans without consent, and $5.4 million to
a fraud whistleblower: to name a few.
To police Wells Fargo's scandals, the Federal Reserve imposed a cap
on the company's assets in 2018. As a result, the company is
restricted in adding customers and loans. Since then, the company
has dropped $220 billion in stock value.
Still, Wells Fargo remains one of the largest American home loan
servicers. But to escape this suit, the company will have to beat
breach-of-contract, state-law consumer protection, and federal
racketeering claims. [GN]
WILLIS TOWERS: Settlement in Merger Related Suits Gets Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that
following the final fairness hearing, the court in the In re Towers
Watson & Co. Stockholders Litigation,' C.A. No. 2018-0132-KSJM,
finally approved the settlement.
The Company was named as a defendant in two consolidated actions
arising out of the 2016 'merger of equals' between Towers Watson
and Willis, consisting of a consolidated shareholder class action
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, captioned 'In re Willis Towers Watson plc
Proxy Litigation,' Master File No. 1:17-cv-1338-AJT-JFA (the
'Federal Action'), and a consolidated putative shareholder class
action pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned 'In re
Towers Watson & Co. Stockholders Litigation,' C.A. No.
2018-0132-KSJM (the 'Delaware Action').
The complaints in these actions generally allege that the
defendants omitted material information from the proxy disclosures
relating to the Merger, including with respect to potential
conflicts of interest, and, as a result, that Towers Watson's
stockholders approved the Merger based on inadequate information.
Based on these allegations, among others, the complaint in the
Federal Action asserts claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the complaint in the Delaware
Action asserts claims under Delaware state law for breach of
fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.
On or about November 19, 2020, the parties to the Federal Action
and the Delaware Action reached an agreement in principle to
resolve the Federal Action and the Delaware Action for $75 million
and $15 million, respectively.
The Company agreed to the settlement and the payment of the
settlement amounts to eliminate the distraction, burden, expense
and uncertainty of further litigation. Further, in reaching the
settlement, the parties understood and agreed that there is no
admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company or any of the
other defendants in either the Federal Action or the Delaware
Action.
The Company and the other defendants expressly deny any liability
or wrongdoing with respect to the matters alleged in the Federal
Action and the Delaware Action.
On January 15, 2021, the parties to the Federal Action and the
Delaware Action signed formal stipulations of settlement, which
memorialized the terms of the agreement in principle, and which the
plaintiffs in the Federal Action and the Delaware Action then filed
with each of the respective courts.
Also on January 15, 2021, the plaintiff in the Federal Action filed
a motion to preliminarily approve the settlement.
On January 21, 2021 the court in the Federal Action preliminarily
approved the settlement, approved the form of notice to be
disseminated to class members, and scheduled a final fairness
hearing on the settlement for May 21, 2021. On May 21, 2021,
following the final fairness hearing, the court in the Federal
Action finally approved the settlement.
On January 25, 2021 the court in the Delaware Action approved the
form of notice to be disseminated to class members and scheduled a
final fairness hearing on the settlement for May 25, 2021. On May
25, 2021, following the final fairness hearing, the court in the
Delaware Action finally approved the settlement.
The Company made the $90 million aggregate settlement payment in
escrow in February 2021.
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.
WYNN RESORTS: Nevada Court Pares Down Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on
July 28, 2021, Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada granted in part and denied in part
a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a
resort and casino operator (the "Company") and its current and
former officers alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5,
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Ferris v. Wynn Resorts Ltd.,
No. 18-CV-00479 (D. Nev. July 28, 2021). Plaintiffs alleged that
the Company made material misstatements and omissions concerning
allegations that its CEO engaged in sexual misconduct. The Court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims relating
to alleged misstatements made directly in response to a newspaper
article and lawsuit concerning the CEO's alleged misconduct, but
granted the motion to dismiss with respect to the alleged
misstatements that concerned the Company's code of conduct,
compliance with laws and regulations, and corporate culture.
In January 2018, after a newspaper published an article detailing
the CEO's pattern of sexual misconduct, the price of the Company's
stock dropped precipitously. The Company and the CEO made several
statements denying the allegations in the article and other
allegations of misconduct from a lawsuit brought by the CEO's
ex-wife. Shortly thereafter, two women filed police reports
accusing the CEO of sexually assaulting them in the 1970s. The CEO
resigned in February 2018, days before news of the police reports
became public. Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made seven
categories of misstatements relating to its CEO's alleged
misconduct: (1) responses to the article that denied the misconduct
or downplayed the Company's knowledge of the CEO's misconduct, (2)
responses denying the allegations made in a lawsuit brought by the
CEO's ex-wife, (3) statements regarding the Company's code of
conduct, (4) statements regarding the Company's full compliance
with all applicable laws, (5) statements about regulatory risks,
(6) statements about the CEO's skills and possible departure, and
(7) statements regarding corporate culture. The Company moved to
dismiss the complaint, arguing that plaintiffs had failed to allege
falsity of the statements at issue.
The Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion
to dismiss. First, the Court denied the Company's motion as to the
statements made in response to the newspaper article because it
found the Company's statements would give a reasonable investor the
"impression that the allegations are false and fabricated." The
Court emphasized that the Company had received multiple complaints
about the CEO's sexual misconduct by the time the article was
published and that various Company executives were aware of the
complaints. Similarly, the Court held that plaintiffs had
adequately alleged that the Company's statements in response to the
lawsuit brought by the CEO's ex-wife were materially misleading.
Specifically, the Court held that the Company's statements would
have given a reasonable investor the impression that the Company
denied all allegations concerning the CEO's "serious misconduct,"
when, in fact, the Company had already received multiple complaints
about the CEO's misconduct.
Second, the Court granted the motion to dismiss claims regarding
the remaining categories of misstatements. With respect to the
statements in the Company's code of conduct, the Court rejected
plaintiffs' argument that the code of conduct was misleading
because the Company did not apply its standards to the CEO's
behavior. The Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims as to these
statements because they were aspirational in nature, and even if
they were affirmative misrepresentations, they could not be
material. The Court also dismissed plaintiffs' claims as to the
Company's statements regarding its compliance with all applicable
laws because the challenged statements were made in the context of
a specific litigation and "a reasonable person reading the
statement[s] fairly and in context" would not find the statements
misleading. Similarly, the Court rejected plaintiffs' claims with
respect to the Company's statements regarding regulatory and
compliance risks because the omission of the CEO's alleged pattern
of misconduct did not render misleading statements that "merely
describe[d] possible measures regulators could take if they
determine that the Company violated a regulation." With respect to
the alleged misstatements regarding the CEO's unique skills and
possible departure, the Court agreed with the Company that the
"statements only describe[d] [the CEO]'s value and possible
departure in a general manner and did not create a duty to disclose
his alleged misconduct." Finally, the Court agreed with the Company
that the challenged statements regarding company culture, which
focused on topics like diversity and the CEO's comfort with the
pace of company growth, were inactionable puffery. [GN]
XEROX CORP: Time to Perfect Appeal in Ribbe Extended to Sept. 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that plaintiff's time to
perfect the appeal of the December 14, 2020 dismissal order in
Ribbe v. Jacobson, et al., has been extended to September 13, 2021.
On April 11, 2019, Carmen Ribbe filed a putative derivative and
class action stockholder complaint in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York for New York County, naming as defendants Xerox,
current Board members Joseph J. Echevarria, Cheryl Gordon Krongard,
Keith Cozza, Giovanni G. Visentin, Jonathan Christodoro, Nicholas
Graziano, and A. Scott Letier, and former Board members Jeffrey
Jacobson, William Curt Hunter, Robert J. Keegan, Charles Prince,
Ann N. Reese, Stephen H. Rusckowski, Gregory Q. Brown, and Sara
Martinez Tucker.
Plaintiff previously filed a putative shareholder derivative
lawsuit on May 24, 2018 against certain of these defendants, as
well as others, in the same court; that lawsuit was dismissed
without prejudice on December 6, 2018 ("Ribbe I").
The new complaint included putative derivative claims on behalf of
Xerox for breach of fiduciary duty against the then members of the
Xerox Board who approved Xerox's entry into agreements to settle
shareholder actions filed in 2018 in the same court against Xerox,
its then directors, and FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation in connection
with a proposed transaction announced in January 2018 to combine
Xerox and Fuji Xerox (the "Fuji Transaction"), including a
consolidated putative class action, In re Xerox Corporation
Consolidated Shareholder Litigation ("XCCSL"), and actions filed by
Darwin Deason, Deason v. Fujifilm Holdings Corp., et al. and Deason
v. Xerox Corporation, et al., against the same defendants as well
as, in the first Deason action, former Xerox Chief Executive
Officer Ursula M. Burns (the "Fuji Transaction Shareholder
Lawsuits").
Plaintiff alleged that the settlements ceded control of the Board
and the Company to Darwin Deason and Carl C. Icahn without a vote
by, or compensation to, other Xerox stockholders; improperly
provided certain benefits and releases to the resigning and
continuing directors; and subjected Xerox to potential breach of
contract damages in an action by Fuji relating to Xerox's
termination of the proposed Fuji Transaction.
Plaintiff also alleged that the current Board members breached
their fiduciary duties by allegedly rejecting plaintiff's January
14, 2019 shareholder demand on the Board to remedy harms arising
from entry into the Deason and XCCSL settlements. The new complaint
further included direct claims for breach of fiduciary duty on
behalf of a putative class of current Xerox stockholders other than
Mr. Deason, Mr. Icahn, and their affiliated entities (the "Ribbe
Class") against the defendants for causing Xerox to enter into the
Deason and XCCSL settlements, which plaintiff alleged perpetuated
control of Xerox by Mr. Icahn and Mr. Deason and denied the voting
franchise of Xerox shareholders. Among other things, plaintiff
sought damages in an unspecified amount for the alleged fiduciary
breaches in favor of Xerox against defendants jointly and
severally; rescission or reformation of the Deason and XCCSL
settlements; restitution of funds paid to the resigning directors
under the Deason settlement; an injunction against defendants'
engaging in the alleged wrongful practices and equitable relief
affording the putative Ribbe Class the ability to determine the
composition of the Board; costs and attorneys' fees; and other
further relief as the Court may deem proper.
Defendants accepted service of the complaint as of May 16, 2019. On
June 4, 2019, the Court entered an order setting a briefing
schedule for defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint.
On July 12, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to preclude defendants
from referencing in their motions to dismiss the formation of, or
work by, the committee of the Board established to investigate
plaintiff's shareholder demand. On July 18, 2019, the Court denied
plaintiff's motion and adjourned sine die the deadline by which
defendants must file any motions to dismiss the complaint.
On January 6, 2020, plaintiff filed his first amended complaint
("FAC"). The FAC includes many of plaintiff's original allegations
regarding the 2018 shareholder litigation and settlements, as well
as additional allegations, including, among others, that the
members of the Special Committee of the Board that investigated
plaintiff's demand lacked independence and wrongfully refused to
pursue the claims in the demand; allegations that an agreement
announced in November 2019 for, among other things, the sale by
Xerox of its interest in Fuji Xerox to Fujifilm and dismissal of
Fujifilm's breach of contract lawsuit against Xerox (the "FX Sale
Transaction"), was unfavorable to Xerox; and allegations about a
potential acquisition by Xerox of HP similar to those in the Miami
Firefighters derivative action described below.
In addition to the claims in the April 11, 2019 complaint, the FAC
adds as defendants Carl C. Icahn, Icahn Capital LP, and High River
Limited Partnership (the "Icahn defendants") and asserts claims
against those defendants and the Board similar to those in Miami
Firefighters relating to the Icahn defendants' purchases of HP
stock allegedly with knowledge of material nonpublic information
concerning Xerox's potential acquisition of HP.
In addition to the relief sought in Ribbe's prior complaint, the
FAC seeks relief similar to that sought in Miami Firefighters
relating to the Icahn defendants' alleged purchases of HP stock.
On January 21, 2020, plaintiff in the Miami Firefighters action
filed a motion seeking to intervene in Ribbe and to have stayed, or
alternatively, severed and consolidated with the Miami Firefighters
action, any claims first filed in Miami Firefighters and later
asserted by Ribbe.
At a conference held on February 25, 2020, the Court denied the
motion to intervene without prejudice. On March 6, 2020, plaintiff
in the Miami Firefighters action renewed its motion. On July 23,
2020, after hearing oral argument, the Court issued an order
denying the motion and setting certain case deadlines.
Discovery commenced.
On August 7, 2020, Xerox, the director defendants, and the Icahn
defendants filed separate motions to dismiss. On October 1, 2020,
plaintiff filed a cross-motion seeking, among other relief, joinder
of Xerox Holdings Corporation as a nominal defendant.
Briefing on the motions to dismiss and plaintiff's cross-motion was
completed on October 16, 2020. On December 14, 2020, following oral
argument, the Court issued a decision and order denying plaintiff's
cross-motion and granting defendants' motions, dismissing the
action in its entirety as to all defendants.
Dismissal as to the Icahn defendants was conditioned on the filing
of an affidavit, which the Icahn defendants filed on December 16,
2020, indicating whether defendant Icahn gained a profit or
incurred a loss on purchases of HP stock during the relevant time
period.
On January 13, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the
December 14, 2020 dismissal order to the Appellate Division, First
Department.
Upon his application to the Appellate Division, plaintiff's time to
perfect the appeal of the December 14, 2020 dismissal order has
been extended to September 13, 2021.
On April 7, 2021, plaintiff filed in the previously dismissed Ribbe
I and XCCSL actions a motion seeking an award of attorneys' fees of
$1.5 and a service award of $10 thousand for benefits he allegedly
obtained for Xerox and its stockholders.
On June 4, 2021, the Court granted plaintiff's fee application, in
part, and awarded plaintiff attorneys' fees in the amount of $125
thousand in the dismissed actions.
The Court denied plaintiff's request for a service award.
Xerox will vigorously defend against this matter. At this time, it
is premature to make any conclusion regarding the probability of
incurring material losses in this litigation.
Xerox said, "Should developments cause a change in our
determination as to an unfavorable outcome, or result in a final
adverse judgment or settlement, there could be a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, cash flows and financial
position in the period in which such change in determination,
judgment, or settlement occurs."
Xerox Corporation designs, develops, and sells document management
systems and solutions worldwide. It offers intelligent workplace
services, including managed print services; digitization services;
and digital solutions, such as workflow automation, personalization
and communication software, and content management. Xerox
Corporation was founded in 1906 and is headquartered in Norwalk,
Connecticut.
XPO LOGISTICS: Dismissal of Labul Class Suit Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal in Labul v.
XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., is pending.
On December 14, 2018, a putative class action captioned Labul v.
XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut against the company and some of its
current and former executives, alleging violations of Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, based on alleged material misstatements and
omissions in our public filings with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
On June 3, 2019, lead plaintiffs Local 817 IBT Pension Fund, Local
272 Labor-Management Pension Fund, and Local 282 Pension Trust Fund
and Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund filed a consolidated class action
complaint.
Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint
on August 2, 2019. On November 4, 2019, the Court dismissed the
consolidated class action complaint without prejudice to the filing
of an amended complaint.
The Pension Funds, on January 3, 2020, filed a first amended
consolidated class action complaint against us and a current
executive. Defendants moved to dismiss the first amended
consolidated class action complaint on March 3, 2020.
On March 19, 2021, the Court dismissed the first amended
consolidated class action complaint with prejudice and closed the
case.
On April 29, 2021, the Pension Funds filed a notice of appeal, and
the appellate process is ongoing.
XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.
XPO LOGISTICS: Trial in Alvarez, Arrellano Suits Set for September
------------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that trial in Alvarez v. XPO
Logistics Cartage, LLC and Arrellano v. XPO Port Services, Inc.,
are set for September 2021.
Certain of the company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries are
defendants in class action litigations brought by independent
contract carriers in California who contracted with these
subsidiaries.
In these cases, the contract carriers assert that they should be
classified as employees, rather than independent contractors.
In two related cases pending in Federal District Court in Los
Angeles, Alvarez v. XPO Logistics Cartage, LLC and Arrellano v. XPO
Port Services, Inc., the Court has certified classes beginning in
April 2016 and March 2013, respectively.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants exercised an impermissible degree
of control over plaintiffs' operations through the terms of the
parties' contracts and defendants' policies, including enforcement
of requirements imposed on motor carriers by state and federal law.
The particular claims asserted vary from case to case but generally
include claims that, should the contract carriers be determined to
be employees, they would be entitled to reimbursement for unpaid
wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid wages for missed meal and rest
periods, reimbursement of certain of the contract carriers'
business expenses (including fuel and insurance related costs),
Labor Code penalties under California's Private Attorneys General
Act, and attorneys' fees and costs associated with bringing the
action.
Defendants continue to mount a vigorous defense on the merits of
plaintiffs' claims, including as to the threshold issue of
employment classification.
Both cases are scheduled for trial in September 2021; however, this
date may be impacted or significantly delayed by the effect of the
COVID-19 pandemic on Court operations, including the scheduling of
jury trials.
XPO said, "We anticipate further legal rulings from the Court at or
before trial that may substantially affect the scope of the claims
asserted. As a result, we are unable at this time to estimate the
amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that we may
incur as a result of these claims."
XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.
ZYMERGEN INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of October 4 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Zymergen Inc. (NASDAQ:ZY) investors with
significant losses to submit your losses now.
Class Period: Apr. 20, 2021 - Aug. 4, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Oct. 4, 2021
Visit:www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/ZY
Contact An Attorney Now:ZY@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
Zymergen Inc. (ZY) Securities Class Action:
The case arises from Zymergen's misrepresentations in its
Registration Statement for its Apr. 23, 2021 IPO concerning
Hyaline, the Company's primary product that remains in the customer
qualification stage.
Specifically, the Registration Statement emphasized Hyaline's total
addressable market ("TAM"), but omitted that: (1) during the
qualification process, key customers had encountered technical
issues, including product shrinkage and incompatibility with
customers' processes; (2) Zymergen lacked visibility into the
qualification process; (3) the Company had overestimated demand for
its products; and (4) the Company's product delivery timeline would
be delayed, which in turn would prolong revenue generation.
These false statements and omissions allowed the Company to sell
more than 18.5 million shares of common stock at a price of $31.00
per share, raising $530.1 million.
But on Aug. 3, 2021, Zymergen announced it became aware of "issues"
with its commercial product pipeline impacting the Company's
delivery timeline and revenue projections. Zymergen disclosed that
it did not expect any product revenues in 2021 and that 2022
revenues would be immaterial. The Company blamed the commercial
ramp delay on several key target customers being unable to use
Hyaline in their manufacturing processes and on a smaller TAM than
previously disclosed.
In addition, Zymergen's CEO (Josh Hoffman) abruptly left the
Company.
This news sent the price of Zymergen shares crashing down $26.58 on
Aug. 4, 2021, wiping out hundreds of millions of dollars in
shareholder value.
"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Zymergen lied about
Hyaline's business prospects," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens
Berman partner leading the investigation.
If you invested in Zymergen and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Zymergen should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email ZY@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com. [GN]
ZYMERGEN INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 4 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 10
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Zymergen Inc. (NASDAQ: ZY) pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and related
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with Zymergen's April 2021 initial public offering (the
"IPO" or "Offering"). A class action lawsuit has already been
filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the
Court no later than October 4, 2021.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Zymergen securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Zymergen class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2141.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 4, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the Registration
Statement featured false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) during the qualification process for Hyaline,
key customers had encountered technical issues, including product
shrinkage and incompatibility with customers' processes; (2) though
the qualification process was critical to achieving market
acceptance for Hyaline and generating revenue, Zymergen lacked
visibility into the qualification process; (3) as a result,
Zymergen overestimated demand for its products; (4) as a result of
the foregoing, Zymergen's product delivery timeline was reasonably
likely to be delayed, which in turn would delay revenue generation;
and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
statements about Zymergen's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.
To join the Zymergen class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2141.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
ZYNGA INC: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in I.C. Data Breach Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, I.C., ET AL., Plaintiffs v. ZYNGA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-01539-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
grants Zynga's motion to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss
for lack of standing with leave to amend.
The case arises from the September 2019 data breach of Defendant
Zynga's customer database containing personal identifying
information. Prior to consolidation of the four individual actions
comprising this case, Zynga had filed motions to compel
arbitration, which the Court denied without prejudice. The Court
granted Zynga leave to conduct discovery as to identification of
the Plaintiffs' Zynga accounts in order to ascertain the applicable
terms of service.
On March 12, 2021, Plaintiffs I.C., Amy Gitre, Carol Johnson, Lisa
Thomas, Joseph Martinez IV, Daniel Petro, and Christopher Rosiak
filed a consolidated class action complaint, asserting 27 causes of
action in connection with the data breach. On April 27, 2021, Zynga
renewed its motion to compel arbitration against Plaintiffs Gitre,
Thomas, and Martinez. It also moved to dismiss the action as to
remaining Plaintiffs I.C., Johnson, Petro, and Rosiak for lack of
Article III standing and for failure to state a claim.
Having carefully considered the briefing and arguments submitted on
the motion, and for the reasons stated on the record at the July
27, 2021 hearing, Judge Rogers grants the motion to compel
arbitration and grants the motion to dismiss for lack of standing
with leave to amend.
With respect to the motion to compel arbitration, Judge Rogers
finds that Plaintiffs Gitre, Thomas, and Martinez entered into an
arbitration agreement with Zynga when they accepted the 2019 Terms
of Service. Contrary to the Plaintiffs' position, the failure to
include a "Reject" button does not preclude formation of the
agreement. Courts routinely uphold clickwrap agreements, such as
the ones presented to the Plaintiffs in the case, which require
website users "to click on an 'I agree' button after being
presented with a list of terms and conditions of use." So long as
the user has access to the terms and conditions, "even if the terms
are not presented on the same page as the acceptance button,"
clickwrap agreements have been consistently used to compel
arbitration.
Further, Judge Rogers finds that the arbitration agreement clearly
and unmistakably delegated questions of arbitrability to the
arbitrator. She says that the "Changes to Section 15 Agreement to
Arbitrate and Class Action Waiver" subsection refers to "the court"
does not change the conclusion. The purported conflict is
"artificial" because it does not contradict "the agreement's
unambiguous statement identifying arbitrable claims and
arguments."
Moreover, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs do not raise a valid
unconscionability challenge specifically directed at the delegation
clause. Thus, she does not address the Plaintiffs' McGill and
unconscionability challenges concerning the entire arbitration
agreement. Accordingly, the motion to compel arbitration as to
Plaintiffs Gitre, Thomas, and Martinez is granted.
With respect to the motion to dismiss, Judge Rogers finds that, as
currently pled, the complaint fails to establish a sufficiently
concrete injury-in-fact as required for Article III standing.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged an
invasion of privacy or a risk of future harm based on the
information allegedly stolen in the breach. Accordingly, the motion
to dismiss is granted for lack of Article III standing with leave
to amend.
The Plaintiffs will file an amended complaint (and provide the
Court with an accompanying redline) no later than Aug. 27, 2021.
Zynga will respond to the filing no later than Sept. 20, 2021.
Should the amended complaint survive an Article III standing
challenge, Zynga will be permitted to re-assert its challenge to
the merits. However, Zynga may not assert any grounds which could
have been asserted in the instant motion.
The Order terminates Docket Numbers 71 and 72.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/f3xk37pn from Leagle.com.
*********
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 ***