/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210824.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, August 24, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 163
Headlines
1888 MILLS: Brown Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Collective
1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Finger Suit Alleges
24/7 LOGISTICS: Thomas-Lawson Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
3M COMPANY: Boyce Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Casey Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Foley Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Fondaw Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Hill Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Meyers Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Travers Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
ABIOMED INC: Bid to Dismiss Local 705 Teamsters' Class Suit Pending
ADVANCED CLINICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Smith Suit Alleges
AGRARIA SAN FRANCISCO: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AK CAFE: Dogan's Bid for Partial Summary Judgment in Perez Granted
ALL IN PIZZA: Clements Seeks Minimum Wages, OT for Delivery Drivers
AMARIN CORP: Dismissal of New Jersey Class Suit Under Appeal
ANGELA'S PIZZERIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fernandez Alleges
ANNOVIS BIO: Faces Zhou Suit Over 60% Decline of Stock Price
ARGENT TRUST: Lysengen Seeks to Certify Plan Participant Class
ARTS IN COMMON: Underpays Restaurant Servers, Thomas Suit Alleges
ASSURANCE IQ: Osidi Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Messages Ads
ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Dismissal of TGERS Class Suit Under Appeal
AVALON COLLISION: Fails to Properly Pay Receptionists, Galaviz Says
AXOGEN INC: Dismissal of Einhorn Class Suit Under Appeal
B & M MANAGEMENT: Park Seeks OT Pay for Consultants Under FLSA
BAPTIST HEALTH: Mismanaged Retirement Plans, Holmes Suit Alleges
BELL PARTNERS: Court Enters Final Order & Judgment in Milroy Suit
BLACKSTONE CONSULTING: Scott Labor Suit Goes to S.D. California
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Dismissal Order in Ignacuinos Suit Affirmed
BSI FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses Counts 1-3 & 5 From Matchett Suit
CARLOTZ INC: Widuck Class Has 60 Days to File Lead Plaintiffs Bid
CASELLA WASTE: Rodney Sues Over Waste Disposal Drivers' Unpaid OT
CCSI INC: Fails to Pay Security Guards' OT Wages, Moore Claims
CEBRIDGE TELECOM: Vasquez Suit Removed to N.D. California
CLIENT SERVICES: Conditional Cert. of Settlement Class Sought
CORE-MARK HOLDING: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Jones Suit Alleges
CORNWELL QUALITY: Salinas Suit Seeks to Certify Class
COVENANT LOGISTICS: Maas Putative Class Suit Underway in California
COVENANT LOGISTICS: Markson Class Suit v. Subsidiary Underway
COVENANT LOGISTICS: Settlement Reached in Tabizon Suit
CRANE CARTAGE: Sedillo Seeks Dispatchers' Unpaid Wages & OT
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Bid to Junk New York Putative Class Suit Pending
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Expects Dismissal of Cato Suit
DENTSPLY SIRONA: No Further Appeal Made in Dismissal of Class Suit
DRAPER AND KRAMER: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collectives Sought
DUCKMILL LLC: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Gomez Suit Alleges
EMERSON ELECTRIC: Venhaus, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
EPIC LIFT: Faces Castro Suit Over Failure to Pay Field Techs' OT
FACEBOOK INC: Cliffy Antitrust Suit Moved From D.D.C. to S.D.N.Y.
FANNIE MAE: Cacciapalle Seeks Certification of Class Action
FCA US: Bledsoe, et al., Seek to Certify Classes
FEDERAL ADJUSTMENT: Christian Sues Over Illegal Collection Letters
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Shimonov Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
FLOR DE MAYO INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Avila Suit Says
FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL: Garcia Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
G.L.A. COLLECTION: Daniels Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana
GATES CORP: Amended Settlement Agreement in Lundine Suit Approved
GENWORTH LIFE: Brighton Trustees Seeks Class Action Certification
GEO GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Purported Class Suit in Florida Pending
GEO GROUP: In-Person Jury Re-Trial to Begin Oct. 12
GILEAD SCIENCES: HIV Meds-Related Suit Underway
GILEAD SCIENCES: Jacksonville Trust Class Suit Underway
GILEAD SCIENCES: Product Liability Suits Over HIV Drugs Underway
GILEAD SCIENCES: Putative Class Suit vs Immunomedics Underway
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Toss US Treasury Securities Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Cert. Bid in Lending Antitrust Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Consolidated Suit Over Mortgage Matters Ongoing
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Array Technologies IPO Related Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces ContextLogic $1.1 Billion IPO Related Suit
GREEN DOT: Robbins Geller Named Lead Counsel in Koffsmon Class Suit
GREENWAY HEALTH: Altamonte Suit Moved From M.D. Fla. to N.D. Ga.
HC2 HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Fair Value Investments Suit Pending
HC2 HOLDINGS: Bocock Class Action Underway
IMCMV HOLDINGS: Breeden Seeks Servers' Unpaid Minimum Wages
INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Court Dismisses Canez Class Suit
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Dismissal of Jansen Suit Under Appeal
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Mediation in Bonus Related Suit Unfruitful
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Securities Class Suits Underway in Tel Aviv
INTERO REAL: Mitchell, Kelly Seek to Represent Certified Classes
INTRICON CORP: Settlement in Hoffman Suit Awaits Court Approval
KAAB INC: Lopez Labor Suit Seeks Minimum Wage for All Hours Worked
KASCHAK ROOFING: Fails to Pay Roofers' OT Wages, Millbeck Claims
KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT: Brayman, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
KINDRED BIOSCIENCES: Wilson Suit Seeks to Enjoin Stockholder Vote
KIRKHAM SOLUTIONS: Gill Files Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
KRYSIAK CONSTRUCTION: Zimnicki Sues Over Workers' Unpaid Overtime
LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss AMCA-Related Suit Pending
LABORATORY CORP: Consolidated Bouffard and Anderson Suit Underway
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Bermejo Class Suit
LABORATORY CORP: Davis Putative Class Suit Underway
LABORATORY CORP: Foy Putative Class Suit Ongoing
LABORATORY CORP: Multiple Motions in Davis Suit Pending
LABORATORY CORP: Sequenom Shareholders' Suit Still Stayed
LABORATORY CORP: Williams Putative Class Suit Underway
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid for Leave to Amend Glover Suit Still Pending
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Hanks Class Suit vs Subsidiary Ongoing
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Iwanski Class Suit vs. First-Penn Underway
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Nitkewicz Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Defends COI Litigation in Pennsylvania
LMD & ASSC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Hernandez-Adorno Class Suit
LOWE'S HOME: Conditional Class Certification Partly Granted
LOWRY FARMS: H-2A Temporary Foreign Workers Win Class Status
LUJAN GRISHAM: Valdez Files Suit in D. New Mexico
LYFT INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suits
LYFT INC: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Haider Suit
LYFT INC: Ruling on ILRC Suit Expected Before Year Ends
MAIN STREET: Dockery Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Illegal Kickbacks
MANNATECH INCORPORATED: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MANNY'S MEXICAN: Lozoya Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MARRIOTT INT'L: Court Denies Helman's Bid to Dismiss Counterclaims
MECC CONTRACTING: Lewis Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
MHR AUSTIN: Faces Eicker Suit in Texas Over Unlawful Tip Pooling
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Gee Suit Moved From S.D. Ind. to N.D. Ill.
NATIONAL GRID: Faces ACP Class Suit Over Federal Tax Charges
NCAA: Thomas Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NCAA: Townsend Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NEO TECHNOLOGY: Class Certification Sought in Portier Suit
NEXXT INC: Martinez Sues Over Blind Buyers' Equal Website Access
NURTURE INC: Williams Consumer Suit Moved From D. Mon. to S.D.N.Y.
OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL: Judgment on Pleadings in Chavez Suit Vacated
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Jury Trial in Weiner Suit to Begin March 7, 2022
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Portions of Settlement in Morris Suit Renegotiated
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Trial in Munoz Suit to Begin February 15, 2022
OH MY GREEN: Settlement in Kastler Suit Gets Initial Approval
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Appeal in SEPTA Initiated Suit Pending
PAPA MURPHY'S: Proceedings in Brown Suit Stayed Pending Appeal
PETROQUEST ENERGY: Seeks Denial of Hoog Class Certification Bid
PLAID INC: Sept. 30 Hearing on Approval of Privacy Suit Settlement
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Sturdivant Files FDCPA Suit in North Carolina
PPL CORP: Continues to Defend Cane Run Plant-Related Suit
PRYCO MOVERS: Lugo Suit Seeks Unpaid OT for Warehouse Employees
PTC INC: Khan Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
RADIUS GLOBAL: Bernard Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters
RAMCO PROTECTIVE: Fails to Pay Welders' Overtime, Rodriguez Claims
RATER8 LLC: Wilson Suit Removed to S.D. California
RCI HOSPITALITY: Trial in Texas Class Suit Set for Jan. 9, 2023
REACTION PROPERTIES: Charman Sues Over Unsolicited Voice Messages
RENO, NE: Castellanos Loses Bid to Certify Class
ROPER TECHNOLOGIES: Mulvey Putative Class Suit vs. Unit Ongoing
RV SKINCARE: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Court Issues Show Cause Order in Fox Suit
SALEM PLACE: Improperly Pays Nurses, Smith Suit Alleges
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Westerkamp Sues Over Earbuds' Allergic Effect
SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Norcia Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
SECURIAN FINANCIAL: Court Tosses Ciofoletti Bid to Certify Class
SHOWS CALI & WALSH: Napoleon Seeks Certification of Class Action
SIG SAUER: Ortiz Seeks to Certify Classes
SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Borges FTSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
SNAP INC: Bride Consumer Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California
SSP INC: Parry Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
STRATEGIC CONTRACT: Vinson Sues Over HSE Specialists' Unpaid OT
SUN PACIFIC: Velasco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TARGET CORPORATION: Initial OK of Class Action Settlement Sought
TITLEMAX OF NEW MEXICO: Court Strikes 2nd Amended Romero Complaint
TOTAL INSURANCE: Conditional Status of Collective Action
Sought
TOWN OF JUPITER: Bernstein Seeks Certification of Collective Action
TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Dismisses Hagopian's Claims With Leave to Amend
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Sturdivant Files FDCPA Suit in M.D.N.C.
TRIPLE CANOPY: Butterfield Seeks to Certify Armed Personnel Class
TRUSTMARK CORP: TNB Continues to Defend Suit Over Stanford Collapse
TULARE COUNTY, CA: Criswell Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
TWIG NEW YORK: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UGI CORP: Deal with Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs Gets Final OK
UNITED PARCEL: Underpays Warehouse Employees, Malone Suit Claims
UNITED STATES: Faces Hart Suit Over Rails-to-Trails Project
UNITY SURVEILLANCE: Misclassifies Technicians, Savage Suit Claims
VAXART INC: Bid to Dismiss California Consolidated Suit Pending
VAXART INC: Bid to Dismiss Stockholder Suit in Delaware Pending
VIACOMCBS INC: Agreement Reached in Spot Advertising Related Suit
VIACOMCBS INC: Construction Laborers Pension Trust Suit Ongoing
VIACOMCBS INC: Discovery in CBS Merger-Related Suit Ongoing
VIACOMCBS INC: Discovery Ongoing in CalPERS Suit
VIEW INC: Faces Mehedi Suit Over 24% Decline of Stock Price
VITRO FLAT: Court Stays Proceedings in Romero Suit Until Feb. 2022
WALGREENS SPECIALTY: Faces Wilkerson Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Ariz.
WALMART INC: Ellebracht Product Liability Suit Moved to S.D. Ohio
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Appeal on Dismissal of Wage & Hour Suit Pending
WEST MASS: Laquidara Seeks to Certify Collective Action
WESTMORELAND SANITARY: Childs Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
YONKERS BREWING: Hernandez Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Cooks
*********
1888 MILLS: Brown Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Collective
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA BROWN,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated to her, v.
1888 MILLS, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00224-TCB (N.D. Ga.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her conditional
certification of a collective including:
"all of Defendant's current and former hourly employees who
were subjected to the common timekeeping scheme wherein their
clock in and clock out times were altered/manipulated such
that they were deprived of overtime within three years prior
to the entry of the Court's Order or as otherwise ordered by
the Court."
The Plaintiff Brown filed her initial Complaint on December 17,
2020 and then her First Amended Complaint in this case on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated to her on March 3, 2021. In
it, she alleged that she, as well as other hourly employees of 1888
Mills, LLC, were subjected to a timekeeping system that distorted
employees' actual clock-in and clock-out times, and whose net
effect was to consistently deprive them of the overtime hours that
they had worked in violation of the FLSA.
1888 Mills manufactures and distributes textile products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 10,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2WbCgQp
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorney for Plaintiff and Those Similarly Situated are:
James M. McCabe, Esq.
S. Graham White, Esq.
THE MCCABE LAW FIRM, LLC
3355 Lenox Road, Suite 750
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 250-3233
Facsimile: (404) 400-1724
E-mail: jim@mccabe-lawfirm.com
1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Finger Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN FINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 1LIFE HEALTHCARE, INC., BRUCE W. DUNLEVIE,
DAVID P. KENNEDY, AMIR DAN RUBIN, PAUL R. AUVIL, MARK S.
BLUMENKRANZ, KALEN F. HOLMES, FREDA LEWIS-HALL, ROBERT R. SCHMIDT,
and SCOTT C. TAYLOR, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06248 (N.D. Cal.,
Aug. 12, 2021) is an action brought by the Plaintiff against 1Life
Healthcare, Inc. ("1Life" or the "Company") and the members of
1Life's Board of Directors (the "Board" or the "Individual
Defendants") for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act"), seeking to enjoin the vote on a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which 1Life will acquire Iora Health, Inc.
("Iora") through 1Life's subsidiary SB Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger
Sub") (the "Proposed Transaction").
According to the complaint, on June 7, 2021, 1Life issued a press
release announcing that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger dated June 6, 2021 (the "Merger Agreement") to sell Iora
to 1Life. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each Iora
stockholder will receive 0.689 shares of 1Life common stock for
each share of Iora common stock they own (the "Merger
Consideration"). Upon completion of the merger, it is estimated
that current 1Life stockholders will own approximately 72% of the
combined company and former Iora stockholders will own
approximately 28% of the combined company. The Proposed Transaction
is valued at approximately $2.1 billion.
On July 16, 2021, 1Life filed a Form 424B3 Prospectus (the
"Prospectus") with the SEC. The Prospectus, which recommends that
1Life stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
allegedly omits or misrepresents material information concerning,
among other things: (i) the Company's and Iora's financial
projections and the data and inputs underlying the financial
valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by
the Company's financial advisor Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("Morgan
Stanley"); and (ii) Morgan Stanley's potential conflicts of
interest.
The Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading
Prospectus in violation of the Exchange Act. Unless remedied,
1Life's public stockholders will be irreparably harmed because the
Prospectus's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them
from making a sufficiently informed voting decision on the Proposed
Transaction, says the suit.
1Life Healthcare, Inc. provides software. The Company offers
healthcare application for billing, insurance, planning, and other
related services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
9100 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 725 E.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com
24/7 LOGISTICS: Thomas-Lawson Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMY THOMAS-LAWSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 24/7 LOGISTICS SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-21-015670 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., August
13, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant
for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant sent unsolicited text
messages to her cellular telephone number beginning on or about
June 16, 2021 in an attempt to promote and solicit its moving
services. Because the Defendant's text messages did not include
instructions on how to opt-out of future messages, the Plaintiff
responded with the "Stop" on or about June 16, 2021 in an attempt
to opt-out of any further text messages communications with the
Defendant. But despite the opt-out language sent by the Plaintiff,
the Defendant continued sending text messages to the Plaintiff's
cellular number, which has been registered with the National
Do-Not-Call registry since May 5, 2020. The Plaintiff asserts that
at no point in time did she provide the Defendant with her express
consent to be sent unsolicited text messages.
The complaint further states that the Defendant's unsolicited text
messages and phone calls have caused actual harm to the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated individuals in the form of invasion of
privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass,
and conversion, as well as inconvenience and disruption to their
daily life.
On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals,
the Plaintiff seeks actual and statutory damages, an injunction
requiring the Defendant to cease all unsolicited text messaging and
calling activity, and other relief as the Court deems necessary.
24/7 Logistics Services, LLC provides long distance moving services
to individuals and institutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Tel: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
- and –
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
3M COMPANY: Boyce Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN BOYCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC;
KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-02640-RMG (D.S.C., August 17, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective
design, failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring
trust, and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and
California Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Casey Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
JERRY DON CASEY v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02400-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 2,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Casey has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Foley Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN W. FOLEY v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02403-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 2,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Foley has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Fondaw Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES JEFFERSON FONDAW v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02401-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 2,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Fondaw has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Hill Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
LYNWOOD HILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC;
KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-02645-RMG (D.S.C., August 18, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective
design, failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring
trust, and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and
California Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Meyers Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD JOSEPH MEYERS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02402-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 2,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Meyers has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Travers Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY PAUL TRAVERS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02399-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 2,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Travers case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
ABIOMED INC: Bid to Dismiss Local 705 Teamsters' Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Abiomed, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the consolidated class action suit headed by Local 705
International Brotherhood of Teamsters Pension Fund, is pending.
On or about August 6, 2019, the Company received a securities class
action complaint filed on behalf of a single shareholder in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of himself and persons or entities that purchased or
acquired the Company's securities between January 31, 2019 through
July 31, 2019.
On October 7, 2019, a similar purported class action complaint was
filed by a different shareholder on behalf of himself and persons
or entities that purchased or acquired the Company's securities
between November 1, 2018 and July 31, 2019.
Also, on October 7, 2019, four shareholders filed applications to
be appointed lead plaintiff and for their counsel to be appointed
lead counsel for the class. Two of those shareholders also filed
motions to consolidate the two cases and two of the shareholders
have withdrawn their applications to be lead plaintiff.
The complaints allege that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act, in connection with
allegedly misleading disclosures made by the Company regarding its
financial condition and results of operations.
The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and
plans to defend itself vigorously.
On June 29, 2020, the Court issued an order consolidating the two
cases and appointed Local 705 International Brotherhood of
Teamsters Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff and the Labaton
Sucharow firm as lead counsel.
On September 17, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in which it proposed a new class period of May 3, 2018 to
July 31, 2019.
As prescribed by a scheduling order, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss on November 16, 2020, lead plaintiff filed its opposition
to that motion on January 15, 2021, and the Company filed its reply
on February 24, 2021.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Abiomed, Inc. is a provider of mechanical circulatory support
devices and offers a continuum of care in heart recovery to heart
failure patients. The Company develops, manufactures and markets
proprietary products that are designed to enable the heart to rest,
heal and recover by improving blood flow and/or performing the
pumping function of the heart. The Company's products are used in
the cardiac catheterization lab, or cath lab, by interventional
cardiologists and in the heart surgery suite by heart surgeons for
patients who are in need of hemodynamic support prophylactically or
emergently before, during or after angioplasty or heart surgery
procedures. The company is based in Danvers, Massachusetts.
ADVANCED CLINICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Smith Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY SMITH, and DONNA CHANG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ADVANCED CLINICAL
EMPLOYMENT STAFFING, LLC and DOES 1—20, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 21 CV385614 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Aug. 12, 2021)
is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum
wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest
periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary
business expenses.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as nurses.
Advanced Clinical Employment Staffing LLC was founded in 2003. The
company's line of business includes providing employment services.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ashkan Shakouri, Esq.
Sharon W. Lin, Esq.
SHAKOURI LAW FIRM
11601 Wilshire Blvd., Fifth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 575-1827
Facsimile: (310) 575-1872
E-mail: ash@shakourilawfirm.com
Sharon@shakourilawfirm.com
AGRARIA SAN FRANCISCO: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Agraria San
Francisco, Inc. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Agraria San
Francisco, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-06968 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Agraria San Francisco -- https://agrariahome.com/ -- specializes in
home fragrance products in a slew of enticing scents.[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
AK CAFE: Dogan's Bid for Partial Summary Judgment in Perez Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EFRAIN BATEN PEREZ, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AK CAFE OF NEW YORK LLC
(D/B/A BABYLON HOOKAH LOUNGE), ALI BABA'S TERRACE INC. (D/B/A ALI
BABA'S TERRACE), ALI BABA'S TURKISH CUISINE INC. (D/B/A ALI BABA'S
TURKISH CUISINE, and ALI RIZA DOGAN, Defendants, Case No. 17 CV
5931-LTS-DCF (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted
Defendant Dogan's motion for partial summary judgment.
Plaintiff Perez brings the putative class action against Defendants
Ali Baba's Turkish Cuisine Inc. ("Cuisine"), Ali Baba's Terrace
Inc. ("Terrace"), Ak Cafe of New York LLC ("Cafe"), and Ali Riza
Dogan alleging that he was not paid the applicable minimum wage or
overtime compensation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") or the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"); was not paid spread of
hours, in violation of the NYLL; and was not provided with
compliant Wage Notices or Wage Statements, in violation of the New
York Wage Theft Prevention Act (NYWTPA).
The Plaintiff was employed as a food preparer by the Cafe from
November 2014 to July 2017. Dogan is a 50% owner of the Cafe with
his partner Mehmet Akcetin. Dogan transferred the Plaintiff from
working at the Terrace to work at the Cafe. He was usually present
at the Cafe on two to three occasions each week. Dogan would work
at a shared computer in the kitchen at the Cafe when he was there,
view surveillance video at the Cafe, and walk around the restaurant
and observe the work of employees. He has instructed the Plaintiff
to complete tasks such as cleaning the bathroom or kitchen and
carrying boxes.
Mr. Dogan's partner Akcetin handled the management of the Cafe and
was solely responsible for hiring its manager, Ercan. Ercan handled
the payroll for the Cafe along with another employee, and his
responsibilities included "recruitment; firing; laying off; taking
orders; customer satisfaction; taking care of the place in general
if there is something needed; and determining the schedules." Dogan
did not have any involvement in managing the Cafe, which he
entrusted to Akcetin and Ercan. For example, Dogan did not have any
involvement in determining the layout of the restaurant,
determining the hours of operation at the Cafe or how many
employees are needed to work at the Cafe, hiring and firing
employees, setting employee schedules, managing payroll at the
Cafe, and hiring the manager of the Cafe. Dogan and Akcetin
together decided to transform the Cafe to a hookah lounge and chose
the types of items that would be sold at the hookah lounge.
Mr. Dogan moves for partial summary judgment as to all claims, to
the extent that they cover the period of time that the Plaintiff
worked at the Cafe, arguing that Dogan cannot be held individually
liable as the Plaintiff's employer under the FLSA and the NYLL
during the time that the Plaintiff worked at the Cafe.
Discussion
Summary judgment is to be granted in favor of a moving party where
that party can demonstrate "that there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law."
Mr. Dogan argues that he is entitled to summary judgment as to all
claims to the extent they cover the time that the Plaintiff worked
at the Cafe because there is no evidence from which the Plaintiff
can establish Dogan's individual liability as an employer under
FLSA or NYLL. Dogan argues that, under the economic reality test,
the evidence supports the conclusion that he did not qualify as
Plaintiff's employer while Plaintiff worked at the Cafe because
Dogan did not have any operational control over the Cafe.
The Plaintiff argues that Dogan exerted sufficient operational
control over the Cafe primarily because he would instruct Plaintiff
to do tasks, such as cleaning the bathroom or kitchen and carrying
boxes, and made business decisions for the Cafe. Additionally, the
Plaintiff argues that Dogan qualifies as an employer under the FLSA
and NYLL based on Dogan's testimony that he and Akcetin determined
together to transform the Cafe into a hookah lounge and decided
what types of items would be available and sold at the hookah
lounge.
Judge Swain finds that Plaintiff "has provided no facts showing
that Dogan ever exercised operational authority over the restaurant
or indirectly influenced the employees' terms of employment. There
is no evidence that Dogan instructed Akcetin or Ercan how to run
the restaurant. She says, it is apparent that he did not influence
the employees' wages, work hours, or conditions, nor did he affect
who was hired or fired." The Plaintiff's vague and conclusory
assertions regarding Dogan's role in the business are insufficient
to frame a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Dogan was
his employer within the meaning of the FLSA or NYLL during the time
that Plaintiff worked at the Cafe.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Swain granted Defendant Dogan's
motion for partial summary judgment. The Plaintiff's claims
against Dogan relating to the period in which he worked at the Cafe
are dismissed in their entirety. The case remains referred to
Magistrate Judge Freeman for general pre-trial management. The
Memorandum Order resolves docket entry no. 54.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 6, 2021 Memorandum Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3tk2xw4f from Leagle.com.
ALL IN PIZZA: Clements Seeks Minimum Wages, OT for Delivery Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BOBBY CLEMENTS, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, v ALL IN PIZZA, LLC, LIGHTNING PIZZA, LLC, and JERRY
LONGEN, Case No. 1:21-cv-00510-RAH-KFP (M.D. Ala., Aug. 2, 2021) is
a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking
recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to the
Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by
Defendants at their Domino's stores.
The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.
The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizzas and other food items to their
customers.
According to the complaint, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers
for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their
vehicles, the Defendants use a flawed method to determine
reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate
beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur
that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall
below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks, the
suit says.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from October 2019 to
July 2020 as a delivery driver at one of Defendants' Domino's
stores located at 2115 E Main St. Suite 1, Dothan, Alabama.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Hughes, Esq.
HARDIN & HUGHES, LLP
2121 14th Street
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
Telephone: (205) 523-0463
Facsimile: (205) 344-6188
E-mail: dhughes@hardinhughes.com
AMARIN CORP: Dismissal of New Jersey Class Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Amarin Corporation plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that plaintiffs have filed a
notice of appeal of the motion to dismiss ruling, which has been
denominated In re: Amarin Corp. PLC, case number 21-2071 (3d Cir.)
On February 22, 2019, a purported investor in the Company's
publicly traded securities filed a putative class action lawsuit
against Amarin Corporation plc, the chief executive officer and
chief scientific officer in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Debendra Sharma v. Amarin Corporation plc,
John F. Thero and Steven Ketchum, No. 2:19-cv-06601 (D.N.J. Feb.
22, 2019).
On March 12, 2019, another purported investor filed a substantially
similar lawsuit captioned Richard Borghesi v. Amarin Corporation
plc, John F. Thero and Steven Ketchum, No. 3:19-cv-08423 (D.N.J.
March 12, 2019).
On May 14, 2019 the court consolidated the cases under the caption
In re Amarin Corporation PLC Securities Litigation, No.
3:19-cv-06601 and appointed two other purported shareholders, Dan
Kotecki and the Gaetano Cecchini Living Trust, as Co-Lead
Plaintiffs.
Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, or
Amended Complaint, on July 22, 2019 that added as defendants the
Company's former chief medical officer and the Company's former
chief executive officer.
The Amended Complaint alleged that from September 24, 2018 to
November 9, 2018 the Company misled investors by releasing topline
results for the REDUCE-IT study without disclosing data on
biomarker increases in the placebo group as compared with baseline
measurement.
The Amended Complaint alleged that these data suggest that the
mineral oil placebo used in the REDUCE-IT study may have interfered
with statin absorption in the placebo group, which they alleged may
have increased adverse outcomes in the placebo group.
The Amended Complaint further alleged that these purported
misrepresentations and omissions inflated the share price. Based on
these allegations, the suit asserted claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and sought unspecified monetary damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.
On March 29, 2021, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss this litigation for failure to state a valid claim.
The litigation was dismissed without prejudice, giving the
plaintiffs the right to file an amended complaint.
Plaintiffs in this action did not file an amended complaint within
the permitted filing deadline.
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on the dismissal ruling, which
has been denominated In re: Amarin Corp. PLC, case number 21-2071
(3d Cir.).
The Company intends to vigorously defend against any future
complaint in this matter.
Amarin Corporation plc, a pharmaceutical company, engages in the
development and commercialization of therapeutics for the treatment
of cardiovascular diseases in the United States. The company was
formerly known as Ethical Holdings plc and changed its name to
Amarin Corporation plc in 1999. Amarin Corporation plc was
incorporated in 1989 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.
ANGELA'S PIZZERIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fernandez Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
LEON FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ANGELA'S PIZZERIA, VINCENT DIMAIO, and TARA
DIMAIO, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-04550 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 12,
2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Fernandez was employed by the Defendants as cook.
ANGELA'S PIZZERIA is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
825 Veterans Highway Ste. B
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com
ANNOVIS BIO: Faces Zhou Suit Over 60% Decline of Stock Price
------------------------------------------------------------
GUOLIAN ZHOU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ANNOVIS BIO, INC., MARIA MACCECCHINI, and
JEFFREY MCGROARTY, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03668 (E.D. Pa.,
August 17, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) regarding Annovis Bio's business, operations, and
prospects in order to trade Annovis securities at artificially
inflated prices between May 21, 2021 and July 28, 2021.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1)
that Annovis' ANVS401, an orally administrated drug that aims to
address neurodegeneration, did not show statistically significant
results across two patient populations as to factors such as
orientation, judgement, and problem solving; and (2) that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about
the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, the suit says.
When the truth emerged, the company's share price fell $65.94, or
60%, to close at $43.50 per share on July 29, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume, allegedly damaging investors.
Annovis Bio, Inc. is a clinical stage pharmaceutical company
headquartered in Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee Albert, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Avenue, Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com
- and –
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
- and –
Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
THE PORTNOY LAW FIRM
1800 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 692-8883
E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com
ARGENT TRUST: Lysengen Seeks to Certify Plan Participant Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ACKIE LYSENGEN, on behalf
of the Morton Buildings, Inc. Leveraged Employee Stock Ownership
Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly
situated, v. ARGENT TRUST COMPANY, JAN ROUSE, and EDWARD C. MILLER,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01177-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:
1. certifying a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1);
"All participants in the Morton Buildings, Inc. Leveraged
Employee Stock Ownership Plan and the beneficiaries of
such participants as of the date of the May 8, 2017 ESOP
Transaction or anytime thereafter;"
Excluded from the Class are the shareholders who sold the
stock of Morton Buildings, Inc. to Morton Buildings, Inc.
or the Plan on May 8, 2017, and their immediate families;
the directors and officers of Morton and their immediate
families; and legal represents of any such excluded
persons; and
2. appoint Bailey & Glasser LLP as Class Counsel.
Argent Trust operates as an investment management firm.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 11,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XwuFfJ
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick O. Muench, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
318 W. Adams St., Suite 1606
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 500.8680
Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
E-mail: pmuench@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 463-2101
Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
rjenny@baileyglasser.com
ARTS IN COMMON: Underpays Restaurant Servers, Thomas Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DARIA THOMAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARTS IN COMMON LLC, HARLEM JAZZ ENTERPRISES
LLC, RICHARD PARSONS and RAFAEL BACCUS, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-06948 (S.D.N.Y., August 18, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York State Labor Law including failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to provide wage notices, failure to furnish accurate
wage statements, and unlawful wage deductions.
The Plaintiff was employed as a server at the Defendants'
restaurant, The Cecil Steakhouse, located at 210 West 118th Street,
New York, New York from June 1, 2021 until July 24, 2021.
Arts in Common LLC is an owner and operator of a restaurant under
the name The Cecil Steakhouse, located at 210 West 118th Street,
New York, New York.
Harlem Jazz Enterprises LLC is an owner and operator of a
restaurant under the name The Cecil Steakhouse, located at 210 West
118th Street, New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
ASSURANCE IQ: Osidi Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Messages Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCES OSIDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASSURANCE IQ, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-11320 (D. Mass., August 13, 2021) brings this class action
complaint against the Defendant seeking injunctive relief and
damages for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant transmitted a prerecorded
voice messages to his cellular telephone number ending in 1668 on
July 2, 2021, July 5, 2021, and July 6, 2021 in an attempt to
promote its services. Purportedly, the prerecorded message included
a prerecorded voice which identified itself as calling from
carinsurance.net and stated that it may be able to "save you a
significant amount of money" and then asked the Plaintiff to call
the Defendant back at 833-965-2995. The Defendant did not obtain
the Plaintiff's prior express written consent" to be contacted for
marketing purposes by prerecorded messages, the Plaintiff
contends.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's unsolicited prerecorded
messages have caused additional harm to the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated individuals in the form of invasion of privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and
conversion, as well as inconvenience and disruption of their daily
life.
Assurance IQ, LLC is a licensed insurance agency which sells
insurance policies to consumers and owns/operates the website
carinsirance.net. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason R. Campbell, Esq.
CHARLESTOWN LAW GROUP
The Schrafft Center Power House
529 Main Street, Suite P200
Charlestown, MS 02129
Tel: (617) 872-8652
E-mail: jasonrcampbell@ymail.com
- and –
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Dismissal of TGERS Class Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Astec Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal in the class
action suit entitled, City of Taylor General Employees Retirement
System v. Astec Industries, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-24-CEA-CHS, is pending.
The Company and certain of its former executive officers were named
as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed
on February 1, 2019, as amended on August 26, 2019, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
The action was styled City of Taylor General Employees Retirement
System v. Astec Industries, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-24-CEA-CHS.
The complaint generally alleged that the defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and misleading
statements and that the individual defendants were control persons
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The complaint was filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased
stock of the Company between July 26, 2016 and October 22, 2018 and
sought monetary damages on behalf of the purported class.
The Company disputed these allegations and filed a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit on October 25, 2019.
On February 19, 2021, the motion to dismiss was granted with
prejudice and judgment was entered for the defendants.
On March 19, 2021, plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the
Judgment and For Leave to File the Proposed Amended Complaint,
which was denied on May 5, 2021.
On June 4, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which is pending.
Astec Industries, Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures, and
markets equipment and components for the road building, aggregate
processing, geothermal, water, oil and gas, and wood processing
industries in the United States and internationally. The company
was founded in 1972 and is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
AVALON COLLISION: Fails to Properly Pay Receptionists, Galaviz Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA GALAVIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AVALON COLLISION & SERVICE INC., LILIO
SALANGA, ELMO NAZARENO, CHRISTOPHER NAZARENO, GUSTAVO SOTO, and
DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV30386 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 17, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code including failure
to compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to pay wages when employment ends, failure to
pay wages owed every pay period, failure to maintain accurate
records, failure to give rest breaks, failure to give meal breaks,
failure to reimburse for business expenses, and wrongful
constructive discharge.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a receptionist from 2018
until March 2021.
Avalon Collision & Service Inc. is an auto body shop in Carson,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com
AXOGEN INC: Dismissal of Einhorn Class Suit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
AxoGen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal on the order of dismissal in
the putative class action suit entitled, Einhorn v. Axogen, Inc.,
et al., No. 8:19-cv-00069, is pending.
On January 9, 2019, Plaintiff Neil Einhorn, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint in the United Stated District Court for the Middle
District of Florida alleging violations of the federal securities
laws against Axogen, Inc., certain of its directors and officers,
and Axogen's 2017 Offering Underwriters and 2018 Offering
Underwriters, captioned Einhorn v. Axogen, Inc., et al., No.
8:19-cv-00069 (M.D. Fla.).
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants made false or misleading
statements in connection with the Company's November 2017
registration statement issued regarding its secondary public
offering in November 2017 and May 2018 registration statement
issued regarding its secondary public offering in May 2018, and
during a class period of August 7, 2017 to December 18, 2018.
In particular, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants issued false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company aggressively increased prices to mask lower sales; (2)
that the Company's pricing alienated customers and threatened the
Company's future growth; (3) that ambulatory surgery centers form a
significant part of the market for the Company's products; (4) that
such centers were especially sensitive to price increases; (5) that
the Company was dependent on a small number of surgeons whom the
Company paid to generate sales; (6) that the Company's consignment
model for inventory was reasonably likely to lead to channel
stuffing; (7) that the Company offered purchase incentives to sales
representatives to encourage channel stuffing; (8) that the
Company's sales representatives were encouraged to backdate revenue
to artificially inflate metrics; (9) that the Company lacked
adequate internal controls to prevent such channel stuffing and
backdating of revenue; (10) that the Company's key operating
metrics, such as number of active accounts, were overstated; and
(11) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Axogen
was served on January 15, 2019.
On February 4, 2019, the court granted the parties' stipulated
motion which provided that Axogen is not required to file a
response to the complaint until thirty days after Plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint.
On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint, and on July 22, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss.
Plaintiff filed opposing papers on August 12, 2019. The Court held
a status hearing on September 11, 2019 and stayed all deadlines
regarding the parties' obligations to file a case management
report. On December 4, 2019 the parties' presented oral arguments.
On April 21, 2020, the Court dismissed the complaint without
prejudice, finding the Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted.
The Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint on June
22, 2020. Axogen filed a motion to dismiss on August 6, 2020. The
Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 20, 2020. The Court held
oral argument on February 25, 2021.
On March 19, 2021, the Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint
with prejudice, finding again that the Plaintiff failed to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted.
On April 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiff
filed its opening brief on June 28, 2021. The Company's appellee
brief is due August 11, 2021.
The Company and Individual Defendants dispute the allegations and
intend to vigorously defend against the Complaint. The amount of
loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.
AxoGen, Inc. provides surgical solutions for physical damage or
transection to peripheral nerves. The company provides its products
to hospitals, surgery centers, and military hospitals in the United
States, Canada, the United Kingdom and other European countries,
and internationally. AxoGen, Inc. is headquartered in Alachua,
Florida.
B & M MANAGEMENT: Park Seeks OT Pay for Consultants Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALISA PARK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. B & M MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-00509-MHT-KFP (M.D. Ala., Aug. 2, 2021) is a collective
action brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant for violations of
the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable
attorney's fee and costs as a result of Defendant's failure to pay
proper overtime compensation under the FLSA.
The Plaintiff worked at Defendant's property in Suwanee, Georgia as
a leasing consultant.
The Defendant is a property management company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kirkpatrick Plaza, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
BAPTIST HEALTH: Mismanaged Retirement Plans, Holmes Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAWANDA HOLMES, ANI M. MILLER and BRITTANY E. ROXBURY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BAPTIST
HEALTH SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BAPTIST
HEALTH SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., THE RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE OF
BAPTIST HEALTH SOUTH FLORIDA, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-30, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-22986 (S.D. Fla., August 17, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties of
loyalty and prudence and failure to adequately monitor other
fiduciaries pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974.
According to the complaint, the Defendants breached the duties they
owed to the Baptist Health South Florida, Inc. 403(b) Employee
Retirement Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to other participants of
the Plan by, inter alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately
review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that
each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2)
maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of
identical or similar investment options with lower costs and/or
better performance histories; and (3) failing to control the Plan's
recordkeeping costs. As a result of the Defendants' alleged
mismanagement of the Plan, the Plaintiffs and Class members have
suffered losses.
Baptist Health South Florida, Inc. is a not-for-profit healthcare
organization and clinical care network in southern Florida, with
its principal place of business located at 6855 Red Road, Suite
500, Coral Gables, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew Fornaro, Esq.
MATTHEW FORNARO P.A.
11555 Heron Bay Boulevard, Suite 200
Coral Springs, FL 33076
Telephone: (954) 324-3651
Facsimile: (954) 248-2099
E-mail: mfornaro@fornarolegal.com
- and –
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 233-4101
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com
- and –
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
Gabrielle Kelerchian, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
gabriellek@capozziadler.com
BELL PARTNERS: Court Enters Final Order & Judgment in Milroy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RANDI MILROY and DAN WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BELL PARTNERS
INC., LSREF3 BRAVO (RALEIGH), LLC d/b/a THE RESERVE AT LAKE LYNN,
and HUDSON CAPITAL WESTON, LLC d/b/a CARY RESERVE AT WESTON,
Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-516-D (E.D.N.C.), Judge James C.
Dever, III, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina grants the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final
approval of class action settlement and Class Counsel's fee
application and request for approval of service awards.
The class action was originally filed in the General Court of
Justice, Superior Court Division, County of Wake, North Carolina
tiled by Plaintiffs Randi Milroy and Dan Williams brought a class
action against Defendants Bell Partners Inc., LSREF3 Bravo
(Raleigh), LLC d/b/a The Reserve at Lake Lynn and Hudson Capital
Weston, LLC d/b/a Cary Reserve at Weston. The Plaintiffs alleged
that the Defendants unlawfully charged eviction-related fees and
unlawfully threatened to charge eviction-related fees. Plaintiffs
sought monetary and declaratory relief for violation of the North
Carolina Residential Rental Agreements Act, North Carolina Debt
Collection Act, and North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.
The Defendants filed a Notice of Removal and the case was removed
to the Court. They filed Motions to Dismiss, arguing that their
charging of eviction-related fees was lawful. The Court granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. While the appeal was pending,
the parties conducted a mediation session with Judge Doug
McCullough (ret.). Thereafter, the parties reached a settlement now
before the Court on final approval.
On Feb. 26, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement
Agreement, the proposed notice plan, and the Settlement Classes.
Pursuant to the plan approved by the Court, notice was disseminated
to the classes. The Court's Order also set a deadline of March 20,
2021 to opt out or object to the settlement. As of March 20, 2021,
only one Settlement Class member has opted out of the settlement
and no Settlement Class Member has objected to the settlement, the
proposed award of fees and expenses to the Class Counsel, or the
proposed service awards to the class representatives.
The Settlement Agreement provides monetary relief of $4.75 million,
which is composed of a Cash Fund of $2.75 million, and Debt Relief
of approximately $2 million. Each Settlement Class member is a
member of one or two classes. The Collection Letter Class is
defined as "all natural persons who (a) at any point between Sept.
21, 2014 and June 25, 2018 (b) resided in any of the properties in
North Carolina owned and/or managed by the Defendants and (c)
received a Collection Letter." The Eviction Fee Class is defined as
"all natural persons who (a) at any point between Sept. 21, 2014
and June 25, 2018, (b) resided in any of the properties in North
Carolina owned and/or managed by Defendants and (c) were charged
and (d) paid Eviction Fees."
The Collection Letter Class members may receive $25 per letter sent
to them by Defendants up to $75. The Eviction Fee Class members
were eligible to receive an estimated $416 without filing a claim.
The Eviction Fee Class members may also be Collection Letter Class
members and file claims for such benefits.
Under the settlement, all costs of notice and claims administration
have been paid by Defendants out of the monetary relief.
Court-approved fees and expenses for Class Counsel and service
awards for the Class Representatives will be paid by Defendants out
of the monetary relief.
In addition, certain Settlement Class members were eligible to
request non-monetary relief in the form of a Consent Motion to Set
Aside Judgment for Possession Pursuant to Rule 60(6)(5) and
Stipulation of Dismissal. The consent motion allows certain
Settlement Class members to set aside judgments entered against
them by Defendants for possession of the rental property; however,
Settlement Class members have the obligation of filing the motion.
The Settlement Classes have been notified of the settlement
pursuant to the plan approved by the Court. After having reviewed
the Post-Notice Declarations of the Settlement Administrator, which
was responsible for carrying out the notice program, Judge Dever
finds that the notice was accomplished in accordance with the
Court's Order. He further finds that the notice program constituted
the best practicable notice to the Settlement Classes under the
circumstances and fully satisfies the requirements of due process.
Judge Dever also finds that the parties' settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate in accordance with Rule 23; was reached at
arm's length without collusion or fraud; and satisfies all of the
requirements for final approval. He has considered the complexity,
expense and likely duration of the litigation if the settlement is
not approved; the odds of the Plaintiffs succeeding at trial
balanced by the risks of continued litigation; the range of
possible recovery if the case is tried; the opinions of the Class
Counsel and the class representative; and the degree of opposition
to the settlement. The settlement is finally approved and the
parties are directed to consummate the settlement in accordance
with its terms.
The Judge finally certifies the Collection Letter Class and the
Eviction Fee Class. The Collection Letter Class is defined as "all
natural persons who (a) at any point between Sept. 21, 2014 and
June 25, 2018 (b) resided in any of the properties in North
Carolina owned and/or managed by Defendants and (c) received a
Collection Letter." The Eviction Fee Class is defined as "all
natural persons who (a) at any point between Sept. 21, 2014 and
June 25, 2018, (b) resided in any of the properties in North
Carolina owned and/or managed by Defendants and (c) were charged
and (d) paid Eviction Fees."
The Judge finally appoints Scott C. Harris and Patrick M. Wallace
of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, and Edward H.
Maginnis and Karl S. Gwaltney of Maginnis Howard, as the Class
counsel; and Randy Milroy and Dan Williams as the Class
Representatives.
The Class Counsel is awarded, from the Settlement Fund, attorneys'
fees in the amount of $1,306,250 from the Defendants to be paid
from the Cash Fund as set forth in the manner described in
Settlement Agreement. The Class Counsel is also awarded, from the
Cash Fund, a reimbursement of their expenses of $4,668.41 and the
Claims Administrator is awarded its expenses for notice and
administration pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.
The Judge also finds to be fair and reasonable service award of
$2,500 each to Randi Milroy and Dan Williams, $5,000 total, to be
paid from the Cash Fund.
Any amounts unused for the administration of the Settlement will be
distributed to the cy pres recipient.
Since no member of the Class has objected to the Settlement, the
Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement is the date of the
signing of the Order, and the Class Releasors will release and
forever discharge the Released Persons from the Released Claims;
provided, however, that the individual identified in the Settlement
Administrator's Declaration who requested to be excluded from the
settlement will not be deemed to have received any claims.
By reason of the settlement, and there being no just reason for
delay, Judge Dever enters final judgment in the matter and all
claims alleged by the Plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice.
Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the action is
dismissed with prejudice as against the Class Representative, all
members of the Settlement Classes and the Defendants and Released
Persons. The Plaintiffs and the Class Members are permanently
barred and enjoined from asserting any and all claims included in
the Settlement Agreement's Release in any legal proceeding.
The parties will bear their own costs except as provided by the
Settlement Agreement and as ordered.
It is further adjudged that the Class Representatives, on behalf of
themselves and members of the Settlement Classes, will be deemed
conclusively to have compromised, settled, discharged, dismissed,
and released any and all rights, claims, or causes of action
against Released Persons as provided for in the Settlement
Agreement.
The Class Administrator will complete administration of the class
by making the payments approved by the Order in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement and the Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 6, 2021 Final Order & Judgment
is available at https://tinyurl.com/aspdvnr5 from Leagle.com.
BLACKSTONE CONSULTING: Scott Labor Suit Goes to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PENNY A. SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BLACKSTONE CONSULTING, INC.; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 37-2021-00022564-CU-OE-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and
for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on August 18, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01470-MMA-KSC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum, regular, and overtime wages;
failure to pay meal periods or pay in lieu thereof; failure to
provide rest periods or pay in lieu thereof; failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay vacation; failure
to pay wages timely to separated employees; failure to reimburse
business expenses; and failure to maintain accurate records.
Blackstone Consulting, Inc. is a business management consultant in
Los Angeles, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Pankit J. Doshi, Esq.
Syed H. Mannan, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
415 Mission St., Suite 5600
San Francisco, CA 94105-2616
Telephone: (628) 218-3800
Facsimile: (628) 877-0107
E-mail: pdoshi@mwe.com
smannan@mwe.com
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Dismissal Order in Ignacuinos Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARL IGNACUINOS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, PAMELA DAVIS, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-3643 (2d
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms the
dismissal of the class action lawsuit.
The Court of Appeals affirms the Sept. 25, 2020 judgment of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (Underhill,
J.), which dismissed the Plaintiffs-Appellants' putative class
action claims contained in a third amended complaint against the
Defendant-Appellee.
Boehringer Ingelheim manufactures Combivent Respimat, a
metered-dose inhaler that is prescribed to alleviate symptoms of
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The Combivent
Respimat inhaler, which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
approved in 2011, consists of an inhaler equipped with a mouthpiece
(Respimat) and a cartridge, which contains the medication itself
(Combivent).
The product's label recommends a dose of "one inhalation four times
a day, not to exceed six inhalations in 24 hours," and it
represents that the product will deliver 120 metered doses (i.e.,
120 "puffs"). The inhaler locks and will not spray any more
medication after 120 doses have been dispensed. In 2016 the FDA
approved an updated version of the labeling of the product,
including "Instructions for Use" that noted the possibility that
"the dose indicator on the inhaler may reach zero too soon" under
certain circumstances involving user error.
The Plaintiffs were prescribed Combivent to alleviate their COPD
symptoms. They allege, however, that the Combivent inhalers deliver
significantly fewer than the labeled 120 doses, and that they were
physically and economically injured as a result. The Plaintiffs
therefore seek to hold Boehringer Ingelheim liable under
Connecticut, Florida, and Indiana state law for alleged design or
manufacturing defects that caused the failure to deliver the
labeled number of doses.
The District Court dismissed both sets of claims as preempted by
federal law. The appeal followed.
The Plaintiffs-Appellants Carl Ignacuinos and Pamela Davis appeal
the judgment. They asserted various state law claims for injuries
caused by the alleged deceptive marketing or defective design and
manufacture of Boehringer Ingelheim's metered-dose inhaler. The
District Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety, holding
that the Plaintiffs' claims were preempted by federal law. On
appeal, the Plaintiffs challenge only the dismissal of their design
and manufacturing-related claims.
The Second Circuit concludes that the Plaintiffs' state law design
and manufacturing defect claims are preempted to the extent that
they would require any change listed in Section 314.70(b)(2). It
agrees with the First Circuit in holding that "if a change fits
under any of the categories listed in section (b)(2), that change
necessarily constitutes a 'major' change requiring FDA
pre-approval," regardless of whether the defendant has shown a
substantial potential for an adverse effect.
First, section (b)(2)'s non-exhaustive list of qualifying changes
is provided "in a heading of the same level as the broad definition
in section (b)(1) (rather than in section (b)(1) itself, or as
perhaps in a hypothetical section (b)(1)(i))." Second, under the
plaintiffs' reading, "whether a change is major or moderate would
depend in every case on a separate determination of the qualitative
magnitude of the change," which the Supreme Court has never
"previously read these regulations to require." And third, "the
categories later defined in section (b)(2) do not map easily onto
the types of changes identified in (b)(1)," such that much of the
regulatory language in section (b)(2) would not "have any meaning
under the Plaintiffs' reading.
The Second Circuit then considers whether Boehringer Ingelheim
could have unilaterally changed the design of the inhaler to
release a different amount of medication per puff. Its answer is
no. It explains that Section 314.70(b)(2)(vi) provides that any
modification to "a drug product container closure system that
controls the drug product delivered to a patient" qualifies as a
major change. Because the modifications that the Plaintiffs' claims
would require under state law constitute "major" changes, the
Second Circuit concludes that those claims are preempted by federal
law. The complaint failed to plausibly state any non-preempted
claim and was properly dismissed.
Conclusion
The Second Circuit has considered the Plaintiffs' remaining
arguments and concludes that they are without merit. For the
foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y5zwy7cz from Leagle.com.
C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, in New York City, for
Plaintiffs-Appellants Carl Ignacuinos and Pamela Davis.
James T. Shearin -- jtshearin@pullcom.com -- Pullman & Comley, LLC,
Bridgeport, CT; Shankar Duraiswamy -- sduraiswamy@cov.co -- Emily
S. Ullman -- eullman@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP, in
Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Appellee Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
BSI FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses Counts 1-3 & 5 From Matchett Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RADONNA MATCHETT, Plaintiff v. BSI FINANCIAL SERVICES,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-211-DAK-CMR (D. Utah), Judge Dale A.
Kimball of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah granted
BSI's Motion to Dismiss the First, Second, Third, and Fifth Causes
of Action with Prejudice.
In June 2008, Plaintiff Matchett obtained a mortgage loan
memorialized by a Note and secured by a Deed of Trust. BSI is the
mortgage servicer of the loan. Matchett alleges that BSI
impermissibly charged her a convenience fee for loan payments that
she made by telephone. By charging a fee for payment by telephone,
Matchett contends that BSI violated the Utah Consumer Sales
Practices Act ("UCSPA"), breached Matchett's mortgage loan
documents, and was unjustly enriched. Matchett seeks statutory
damages, actual and punitive damages, and declaratory and
injunctive relief for herself and a proposed class of similarly
situated individuals.
Six times between September 2017 and April 2018, Matchett tried to
pay her mortgage online but was unable to do so due to an alleged
error on BSI's part. When Matchett was unable to make her payment
online, she made her mortgage payments over the telephone, an
alternate, fee-based payment option that BSI provides to its
customers. Matchett's account statements provided her with five
options for making payment: (1) mail, (2) online, (3) telephone,
(4) ACH (automatic bank payment), or (5) Western Union. The account
statement stated that as to payment by phone, "a fee may apply for
this service." Matchett used the pay-by-phone option in September
and December 2017, and January, February, March, and April 2018.
BSI collected a $20 convenience fee from her in connection with
each telephonic payment she made.
Although Matchett points out that the loan documents do not
expressly authorize BSI to collect a convenience fee for such
services, Paragraph 14 of the Deed of Trust states that "the
absence of express authority in this Security Instrument to charge
a specific fee to Borrower will not be construed as a prohibition
on the charging of such fee." In the case of excess loan charges,
the Deed of Trust also provides that "if the Loan is subject to a
law which sets maximum loan charges, and that law is finally
interpreted so that the interest or other loan charges collected or
to be collected in connection with the Loan exceeds the permitted
limits, then: (a) any such loan charge will be reduced by the
amount necessary to reduce the charge to the permitted limit; and
(b) any sums already collected by Lender which exceeded permitted
limits will be refunded to Borrower. Lender may choose to make this
refund by reducing principal owed under the Note or refunded to
Borrower."
Ms. Matchett also asserts that after the service of the Complaint,
BSO began including additional fees on her monthly loan statements
comprising attorneys' fees that BSI has incurred to defend this
lawsuit. At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the parties
stated that they had settled claims relating to this conduct.
Ms. Matchett's Amended Complaint proposes two classes: (1) a Utah
Class which "consist of (a) all individuals in Utah (b) against
whom BSI (c) charged a convenience fee for accepting payment over
the phone (d) where the underlying agreement did not specifically
provide for said convenience fee and (e) where BSI charged the
convenience fee between September 5th, 2014 and the present;" and
(2) an Equitable Class which "consists of (a) all individuals in
Utah (b) against whom BSI (c) charged a convenience fee for
accepting payment over the phone (d) where the underlying agreement
did not specifically provide for said convenience fee and (e) where
BSI charged the convenience fee between September 5th, 2016 and the
present."
The matter is before the court on Defendant BSI's Motion to
Dismiss. On July 20, 2021, the court held a hearing on the motion.
At the hearing, Daniel M. Baczynski represented the Plaintiff and
Joshua A. Huber represented the Defendant. The Court took the
motion under advisement.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Defendant BSI moves to dismiss the First, Second, Third, and Fifth
Causes of Action in Matchett's Amended Complaint.
1. UCSPA Claim
BSI moves to dismiss Matchett's individual claims and proposed
class action claims under the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act
("UCSPA") asserted in the First Cause of Action.
A. Class Claims
BSI asks the court to dismiss Matchett's class action claims that
are brought under the UCSPA. Matchett argues that BSI had notice
that its acts violated a list of deceptive acts provided in the
text of the UCSPA itself as well as an administrative rule passed
by the Utah Division of Consumer Protection. Matchett also points
to Utah Admin Code R152-11-5 as a basis for her UCSPA class claims.
Alternatively, Matchett claims that BSI could have been on notice
by a final judgment obtained by the Division of Consumer
Protection, but she has not yet explored the significant number of
judgments granted.
Judge Kimball concludes that Matchett has not pled any such
statutory authorization for her class claims because she does not
allege that BSI's fee for the pay-by-phone option violates any
existing administrative rule, court order, or consent decree. The
Judge finds that the UCSPA is not a substantive rule adopted by the
Utah Division of Consumer Protection, and thus BSI did not have the
type of notice outlined in the UCSPA. She also holds that Matchett
has not identified an administrative rule that prohibits the UCSPA
violations alleged in her Amended Complaint. Third, because there
is no basis for such a claim at this time, the court does not grant
Matchett leave to amend the present Amended Complaint in this
action. Accordingly, Matchett's class action claims for damages
under the UCSPA is dismissed without prejudice.
B. Individual Claim — Mortgage Servicing Conduct
BSI also argues that the UCSPA does not apply to Matchett's
individual UCSPA claim because the UCSPA does not apply in the
mortgage loan servicing context and a more specific statute applies
to mortgage servicers. It argues that the Plaintiff does not have a
claim under the UCSPA because Utah's Mortgage Lending and Servicing
Act ("MLSA") specifically regulates mortgage loan servicing in
Utah. Matchett acknowledges that the Tenth Circuit held that the
MLSA precludes mortgage-related claims pursuant to the UCSPA.
However, Matchett contends that a specific section of the MLSA must
govern the specific conduct at issue in order for the UCSPA claims
to be preempted.
Judge Kimball holds that Matchett incorrectly states that Berneike
was precluded from pursuing her UCSPA claim because Utah Code Ann.
Section 70D-2-304 of the MLSA supposedly prohibited the Defendant's
specific alleged conduct. Section 70D-2-304 had no relationship to
Berneike's claims and allegations regarding wrongful overcharges
and improper fees. Even if the UCSPA applied, Matchett does allege
a deceptive act. Her notion that she was forced to either incur the
convenience fee for payment by phone or face a late fee is
demonstrably incorrect. Therefore, Matchett's claim that the fee
was deceptive is not plausible. Finally, Matchett's statute of
frauds argument is also unpersuasive. Matchett voluntarily used an
optional service and was aware an additional fee was associated
with using it before she chose to use it. There is nothing in the
loan documents that prohibits Matchett from using an optional
service and paying an optional, disclosed fee for that service.
Therefore, the statute of frauds is not implicated.
2. Unjust Enrichment Claim
BSI argues that Matchett's Second Cause of Action for unjust
enrichment also fails as alleged in the Amended Complaint.
Matchett's claim alleges that BSI was unjustly enriched by
collecting fees for the payments Matchett made by telephone.
Judge Kimball holds that although Matchett claims that no contract
governs convenience fees where the underlying agreement does not
provide for or address convenience fees, this allegation is belied
by the other claims in the Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint
acknowledges the existence of an express contract governing the
Loan and the lender-borrower relationship between Matchett and BSI.
The Deed of Trust, an express contract between the parties,
directly addresses loan fees and charges. Because an express
contract covers the subject matter of the litigation, Matchett's
quasi-contractual unjust enrichment claim is dismissed.
3. Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief Claim
During briefing, Matchett conceded to dismissal of this claim.
4. Breach of Contract Claim
BSI contends that Matchett's Fifth Cause of Action for breach of
contract should be dismissed because the loan documents do not
prohibit BSI from charging a fee for a service. Matchett claims
that "to the extent Defendant's conduct is governed by the mortgage
agreement, Defendant breached the agreement by charging fees which
are not allowed under the mortgage agreement."
However, Judge Kimball holds, the Loan Documents in no way prevent
BSI from offering, or Matchet from accepting and using, optional
payment services that are subject to a convenience fee. The Deed of
Trust states that "the absence of express authority in this
Security Instrument to charge a specific fee to Borrower will not
be construed as a prohibition on the charging of such fee." Because
the Amended Complaint does not identify a single contractual
provision of the loan documents, or any other contract between
Matchett and BSI, that prohibited BSI from charging the convenience
fees for optional phone payment services, Matchett's breach of
contract claim is not plausible. Therefore, the Judge dismisses
Matchett's breach of contract claim.
5. Dismissal With Prejudice
Fianlly, BSI asks the Court to dismiss the action with prejudice,
arguing that the Plaintiff has already had one opportunity to amend
her Complaint and any further amendment would be futile.
Judge Kimball determines that there is no basis in law for allowing
Matchett to amend the UCSPA claim because the UCSPA does not apply
in the mortgage servicing context. Matchet also cannot cure the
deficiencies in her unjust enrichment claim because the Loan
Documents exist and govern the relationship between the parties.
The breach of contract claim also cannot be cured because the loan
documents do not have a prohibition against charging fees for
services. Therefore, with the exception of the UCSPA class claims,
which the Court has agreed to dismiss without prejudice, the Judge
dismisses Matchett's other claims with prejudice.
Conclusion
Based on the described reasoning, Judge Kimball granted without
prejudice the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as to Matchett's UCSPA
class action claims and with prejudice as to Matchett's individual
UCSPA claims, unjust enrichment claim, and breach of contract
claim.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 6, 2021 Memorandum Decision &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/57rv7bx4 from
Leagle.com.
CARLOTZ INC: Widuck Class Has 60 Days to File Lead Plaintiffs Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL WIDUCK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARLOTZ, INC., MICHAEL W.
BOR, and THOMAS W. STOLTZ, Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-6191 (RA)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Ronnie Abrams of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York gives the purported class 60 days
from the Plaintiff's filing of the required notice to move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiffs.
On July 20, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
stock in CarLotz between Dec. 30, 2020, and May 25, 2021. The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A) of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A), requires that not
later than 20 days after the date on which the complaint is filed,
the plaintiff or plaintiffs will cause to be published, in a widely
circulated national business-oriented publication or wire service,
a notice advising members of the purported plaintiff class -- (I)
of the pendency of the action, the claims asserted therein, and the
purported class period; and (II) that, not later than 60 days after
the date on which the notice is published, any member of the
purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of
the purported class.
The PSLRA also requires that not later than 90 days after the date
on which notice is published, the Court will consider any motion
made by a purported class member in response to the notice, and
will appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of the
purported plaintiff class that the Court determines to be most
capable of adequately representing the interests of the class
members. In the event that more than one action on behalf of a
class asserting substantially the same claim or claims has been
filed, and any party has sought to consolidate those actions for
pretrial purposes or for trial, the Court will not appoint a lead
plaintiff until after a decision on the motion to consolidate is
rendered.
The members of the purported class therefore have until 60 days
from the Plaintiff's filing of the required notice to move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiffs. Opposition to any motion for
appointment of lead plaintiff will be served and filed by Oct. 14,
2021.
The Court will discuss any motions for lead plaintiff or requests
for consolidation at the Oct. 15, 2021 telephone conference
scheduled for both the instant action and in the related Erdman v.
CarLotz action (No. 21-CV-5906).
The named Plaintiff will serve a copy of the Order on each of the
Defendants.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ye7tr8vd from Leagle.com.
CASELLA WASTE: Rodney Sues Over Waste Disposal Drivers' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH WILSON RODNEY, JR. and ROSEMARIE SIBLEY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CASELLA
WASTE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00196-kjd (D. Vt.,
August 17, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate
the Plaintiffs and similarly situated waste disposal drivers
appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Plaintiffs Rodney and Sibley were employed by the Defendant as
non-exempt waste disposal drivers in Maine from August 2018 until
December 2019 and in Vermont from July 2018 until August 2021.
Casella Waste Systems, Inc. is a solid waste company, with its
headquarters located in Rutland, Vermont. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tristan Christopher Larson, Esq.
LARSON & GALLIVAN LAW, PLC
128 Merchants Row, Suite 405
Rutland, VT 05701
Telephone: (802) 779-9771
E-mail: larson@larsongallivan.com
- and –
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
CCSI INC: Fails to Pay Security Guards' OT Wages, Moore Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
OCTZAVIUS MOORE, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CCSI, INC. and CISSYE CARTHAN, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-00521-KHJ-MTP (S.D. Miss., August 12, 2021) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
illegal practice of failing to pay overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a security guard
from approximately February 14, 2020 to June 21, 2021.
The Plaintiff claims that despite working more than 40 hours per
week, the Defendants did not pay him and other similarly situated
security guards overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours he worked in
excess of 40 per workweek. Instead of paying them overtime, the
Defendant paid them straight time only for all hours he worked,
says the Plaintiff.
CCSI, Inc. operates a security company that provides a full range
of security guard services in Mississippi and surrounding states.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel Dillard, Esq.
Attorney at Law
775 N. Congress Street
Jackson, MS 39202
Tel: (601) 509-1372
E-mail: joel.f.dillard@gmail.com
CEBRIDGE TELECOM: Vasquez Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Nick Vasquez, For Himself, As a Private Attorney
General, and/or On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Cebridge Telecom CA, LLC doing business as: Suddenlink
Communications, ALTICE USA, INC., Case No. CV2100639 was removed
from the Humboldt County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on August 18, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-06400 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Suddenlink Communications -- https://www.suddenlink.com/ -- is an
American telecommunications subsidiary of Altice USA trading in
cable television, broadband, IP telephony, home security, and
advertising.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
575 Market St., Suite 2500
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 874-4230
Fax: (650) 331-2060
Email: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com
CLIENT SERVICES: Conditional Cert. of Settlement Class Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGAN MILITELLO, as
administrator of the Estate of Elizabeth Militello on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC;
CSI INTERCO, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. Case
7:20-cv-07805-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an
order:
1. granting conditional certification of a settlement class
defined as:
"All New York consumers who were sent letters and/or
notices from CLIENT SERVICES, INC., between September 22,
2019 and September 22, 2020, concerning a debt owed to
another, which included a monetary amount for "Interest
Since Charge-Off" but also stated a "Balance Due at
Charge-Off" of $0.00, and also stated an amount of
"Interest Since Charge-off" greater than $0.00, and/or
We are offering you the ability to resolve your account
balance for the amount of $xxx.xx. To accept this offer,
our office must receive payment within 40 days of the date
of this notice.
This offer is contingent timely receipt of your payment.
If payment is not received in our office within forty
days of the date of this notice, this offer will be
withdrawn and will be deemed null and void, with the
remainder of the balance being due and owing. We are not
obligated to renew this offer. Please note that no
interest will be added to your account balance through the
course of Client Services, Inc. collection efforts
concerning your account. This offer does not affect your
right to dispute the debt as described above;"
2. approving conditionally the settlement of this action;
3. conditionally approving the defined Class for the purposes
of Settlement;
4. approving the form and substance of, and directing the
manner of service of, the notice to the Class;
5. setting a date, time and place for a Fairness Hearing; and
6. granting the parties to this action and the Class such
other and further relief as this Court may deem just and
proper.
Client Services is a debt collection agency.
A copy of the Parties motion dated August 16, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3j6CRvN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
One Grand Central Place
60 East 42 nd . Street, 46 th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (646) 459-7971
The Defendant is represented by:
Brendan H. Little, Esq.
LIPPES MATHIAS WEXLER FRIEDMAN, LLP
50 Fountain Plaza, Suite 1700
Buffalo, NY 14202
Telephone: (716) 853-5100
CORE-MARK HOLDING: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Jones Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CORE-MARK HOLDING COMPANY, INC., STUART W.
BOOTH, ROCKY DEWBRE, LAURA FLANAGAN, ROBERT G. GROSS, SCOTT E.
MCPHERSON, DIANE RANDOLPH, HARVEY L. TEPNER, and ROSEMARY TURNER,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-06522 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 12, 2021) is an
action against Core-Mark Holding Company, Inc. ("Core-Mark" or the
"Company") and the members of Core-Mark's Board of Directors (the
"Board" or the "Individual Defendants") for their violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), arising out
of their attempt to sell the Company to Performance Food Group
Company ("PFG") through PFG's subsidiaries Longhorn Merger Sub I,
Inc. and Longhorn Merger Sub II, LLC (the "Proposed Transaction").
According to the complaint, on May 18, 2021, Core-Mark announced
that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"Merger Agreement") pursuant to which, Core-Mark stockholders will
receive: (i) $23.875 per share in cash, and (ii) 0.44 shares of PFG
common stock for each share of Core-Mark common stock they own.
On July 14, 2021, Core-Mark filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement (the "Proxy") with the SEC. Allegedly, the Proxy is
materially deficient and misleading because, inter alia, it fails
to disclose material information regarding, the financial
projections for Core-Mark and PFG, and the financial analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisor, Barclays Capital Inc.
("Barclays"). Without additional information, the Proxy is
materially misleading in violation of the federal securities laws,
added the suit.
Core-Mark Holding Company, Inc. distributes consumer packaged goods
and store supplies to the convenience retail industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
9100 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 725 E.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com
CORNWELL QUALITY: Salinas Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY SALINAS, an
individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v.
THE CORNWELL QUALITY TOOLS COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:19-cv-02275-FLA-SP (C.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order to certify the
following Class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure:
"All persons who signed Dealer Agreements in California and
personally operated a mobile store at any time within four
years preceding the filing of this action."
The Plaintiff further seeks to have certified for resolution each
of the causes of action pled in his operative First Amended Class
Action Complaint, which includes claims for reimbursement of
necessary expenses/unlawful deductions from wages, minimum wage and
overtime violations, failure to provide off-duty meal periods,
failure to authorize and permit paid rest periods, 1194), failure
to furnish accurate wage statements and violations of California's
Unfair Competition Law.
Cornwell Quality is a privately held company manufacturing tools
for the automotive and aviation industries.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 13,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sybuOc
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Shaun Markley, Esq.
Ethan T. Litney, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19 th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
smarkley@nicholaslaw.org
elitney@nicholaslaw.org
COVENANT LOGISTICS: Maas Putative Class Suit Underway in California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that Covenant Transport,
Inc. continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by
Wesley Maas.
On February 11, 2021, a lawsuit was filed against Covenant
Transport on behalf of Wesley Maas (a California resident and
former driver) who is seeking to have the lawsuit certified as a
class action.
The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of San Bernardino
County, California. The Complaint alleges claims for failure to pay
all lawful wages, failure to provide lawful meal and rest periods
or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to timely pay wages,
failure to comply with itemized wage statement provisions, failure
to indemnify for expenditures, and violations of California Labor
Code and unfair competition laws.
Covenant Transport intends to vigorously defend itself in this
matter.
Covenant said, "We do not currently have enough information to make
a reasonable estimate as to the likelihood, or amount of a loss, or
a range of reasonably possible losses as a result of this claim, as
such there have been no related accruals recorded as of June 30,
2021."
Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. operates as a truckload carrier. The
Company offers temperature-controlled transportation service for
shippers primarily in the frozen food and consumer products
industries. Covenant Logistics Group serves customers in the United
States. The company is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
COVENANT LOGISTICS: Markson Class Suit v. Subsidiary Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that Southern
Refrigerated Transport, Inc., a company subsidiary, continues to
defend a putative class action suit initiated by Curtis Markson.
On August 2, 2018, Curtis Markson, et al., filed a putative class
action case in United States District Court, Central District of
California generically claiming that five (5) specified trucking
companies (including the company's subsidiary Southern Refrigerated
Transport, Inc.) entered into a "no poaching conspiracy" in which
they agreed not to solicit or hire employees in California who were
"under contract" with a fellow defendant.
The allegations center around new drivers in California who
received their commercial driver's license through driving schools
associated with, or paid for by, one of the named defendants, in
exchange for agreeing to drive for that defendant carrier for a
specified amount of time (typically 8-10 months).
Over the ensuing 18 – 24 months, the Plaintiffs added more
trucking companies as co-defendants in the lawsuit, including
Covenant Transport on April 23, 2020.
The lawsuit claims that the named defendants sent letters to one
another, providing notice of "under contract" status, if these new
California drivers were hired by another defendant carrier prior to
the driver completing their contractual obligations.
Plaintiffs contend that these notifications evidence a collusive
agreement by the named defendants to restrain competition among
trucking companies in California and suppress wages.
Southern Refrigerated Transport, Inc. and Covenant Transport, Inc.
are vigorously defending themselves against these claims.
Covenant said, "We do not currently have enough information to make
a reasonable estimate as to the likelihood, or amount of a loss, or
a range of reasonably possible losses as a result of this claim, as
such there have been no related accruals recorded as of June 30,
2021."
Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. operates as a truckload carrier. The
Company offers temperature-controlled transportation service for
shippers primarily in the frozen food and consumer products
industries. Covenant Logistics Group serves customers in the United
States. The company is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
COVENANT LOGISTICS: Settlement Reached in Tabizon Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the putative class
suit initiated by Richard Tabizon, was settled at mediation for an
immaterial amount, pending court approval.
The company's subsidiary Covenant Transport, Inc. is a defendant in
a lawsuit filed on November 9, 2018, in the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, California.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Richard Tabizon (a California
resident and former driver) who is seeking to have the lawsuit
certified as a class action.
The complaint asserts that the time period covered by the lawsuit
is from October 31, 2014 to the present and alleges claims for
failure to properly pay drivers for rest breaks, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements and/or reimbursement of
business-related expenses, unlawful deduction of wages, failure to
pay proper minimum wage and overtime wages, failure to provide all
wages due at termination, and other related wage and hour claims
under the California Labor Code.
Since the original filing date, the case has been removed from the
Los Angeles Superior Court to the U.S. District Court in the
Central District of California and subsequently, the case was
transferred to the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of
Tennessee where the case is now pending.
This lawsuit was settled at mediation during the quarter ended June
30, 2021, for an immaterial amount, pending court approval.
Covenant said, "Our accruals related to this claim as of June 30,
2021 were sufficient to cover this settlement."
Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. operates as a truckload carrier. The
Company offers temperature-controlled transportation service for
shippers primarily in the frozen food and consumer products
industries. Covenant Logistics Group serves customers in the United
States. The company is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
CRANE CARTAGE: Sedillo Seeks Dispatchers' Unpaid Wages & OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE SEDILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CRANE CARTAGE, LLC, and CRANE FREIGHT &
CARTAGE INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-02673
(S.D. Tex., August 16, 2021) is a collective action complaint
brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a dispatcher from
March 2021 until July 2021.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated dispatchers regularly and occasionally worked hours over
40 in a week. They tracked their hours on a paper, which they
turned into the temp agency at the end of each pay period. However,
the timesheet did not have space to include weekend hours. As a
result, despite working more than 40 hours, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated dispatchers were deprived of an overtime premium
of one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for all hours
worked in excess of 40 each week, alleges the suit.
On behalf of himself and other similarly situated dispatchers, the
Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking to recover unpaid regular
wage and overtime premiums, as well as liquidated damages,
attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.
The Corporate Defendants provide freight logistics and
transportation services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Bid to Junk New York Putative Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the putative class action suit filed in the Eastern District of New
York, is pending.
On December 19, 2018, a related putative class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against the Company and certain individual defendants.
The plaintiff makes similar allegations and asserts the same claims
as those asserted in the State Court Action.
In addition, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated
U.S. securities laws by making false and misleading statements in
quarterly and annual reports and other public statements between
February 20, 2014, and August 7, 2018.
The plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of a putative class
consisting of (a) all purchasers of the Company's stock during the
period February 20, 2014 through August 7, 2018 and (b) former
shareholders of Sirona who exchanged their shares of Sirona stock
for shares of the Company's stock in the Merger.
The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 15,
2019.
The plaintiff filed its second amended complaint on January 22,
2021, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on March 8, 2021.
Briefing on the motion to dismiss was fully submitted on May 21,
2021, and that motion is currently pending before the Court.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
various dental and oral health products, and other consumable
healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Technologies &
Equipment; and Consumables. The company was formerly known as
DENTSPLY International Inc. and changed its name to DENTSPLY SIRONA
Inc. in February 2016. DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in York, Pennsylvania.
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Expects Dismissal of Cato Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court in Kendra Cato
putative class suit had approved the settlement in that case. The
settlement payment has been made, and the court is expected to
dismiss the lawsuit. Parties to Henry Olivares and Holt Calethia
suits, on the other hand, are in the process of finalizing the
settlement terms, and the parties will then seek court approval of
that settlement.
On January 25, 2018, Futuredontics, Inc., a former wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, received service of a purported class
action lawsuit brought by Henry Olivares and other similarly
situated individuals in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles.
In January 2019, an amended complaint was filed adding another
named plaintiff, Rachael Clarke, and various claims.
The plaintiff class alleges several violations of the California
wage and hours laws, including, but not limited to, failure to
provide rest and meal breaks and the failure to pay overtime. The
parties have engaged in written and other discovery.
On February 5, 2019, Plaintiff Calethia Holt (represented by the
same counsel as Mr. Olivares and Ms. Clarke) filed a separate
representative action in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging a
single violation of the Private Attorneys' General Act that is
based on the same underlying claims as the Olivares/Clarke lawsuit.
On April 5, 2019, Plaintiff Kendra Cato filed a similar action in
Los Angeles Superior Court alleging a single violation of the
Private Attorneys' General Act that is based on the same underlying
claims as the Olivares/Clarke lawsuit.
The Company has agreed to resolve all three actions (Olivares,
Holt, and Cato).
The court in Cato approved the settlement in that case, the
settlement payment has been made, and the court is expected to
dismiss the lawsuit.
The parties to Olivares and Holt are in the process of finalizing
the settlement terms, and the parties will then seek court approval
of that settlement.
The expected settlement amount, which is immaterial to the
financial statements, has been recorded as an accrued liability
within the Company's consolidated balance sheet as of June 30,
2021.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
various dental and oral health products, and other consumable
healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Technologies &
Equipment; and Consumables. The company was formerly known as
DENTSPLY International Inc. and changed its name to DENTSPLY SIRONA
Inc. in February 2016. DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in York, Pennsylvania.
DENTSPLY SIRONA: No Further Appeal Made in Dismissal of Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the plaintiffs in the
consolidated putative class action suit related to the merger did
not appeal the Appellate Division decision upholding the dismissal
of the State Court Action.
On June 7, 2018, and August 9, 2018, two putative class action
suits were filed, and later consolidated, in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of New York claiming that the Company
and certain individual defendants, violated U.S. securities laws
(the "State Court Action") by making material misrepresentations
and omitting required information in the December 4, 2015
registration statement filed with the SEC in connection with the
Merger.
The amended complaint alleges that the defendants failed to
disclose, among other things, that a distributor had purchased
excessive inventory of legacy Sirona products and that three
distributors of the Company's products had been engaging in
anticompetitive conduct. The plaintiffs seek to recover damages on
behalf of a class of former Sirona shareholders who exchanged their
shares for shares of the Company's stock in the Merger.
On September 26, 2019, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss all claims and a judgment dismissing the case was
subsequently entered. On February 4, 2020, the Court denied
plaintiffs' post-judgment motion to vacate or modify the judgment
and to grant them leave to amend their complaint.
The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and the denial of the
post-judgment motion to the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
Appellate Division, First Department, and the Company
cross-appealed select rulings in the Court's decision dismissing
the action.
The plaintiffs' appeals and the Company's cross-appeal were
consolidated and argued on January 12, 2021.
On February 2, 2021, the Appellate Division issued its decision
upholding the dismissal of the State Court Action with prejudice on
statute of limitations grounds. The Plaintiffs did not appeal the
Appellate Division decision.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
various dental and oral health products, and other consumable
healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Technologies &
Equipment; and Consumables. The company was formerly known as
DENTSPLY International Inc. and changed its name to DENTSPLY SIRONA
Inc. in February 2016. DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in York, Pennsylvania.
DRAPER AND KRAMER: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collectives Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE VASQUEZ, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. DRAPER AND KRAMER
MORTGAGE CORP., Case No. 2:21-cv-00693-FMO-AS (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional
certification of the following collectives:
-- Pre-Covid pandemic Class
"All Draper and Kramer Mortgage Corp.Loan Officers
throughout the United States employed at any timebetween
September 22, 2017 and March 14, 2020;" and
-- Covid pandemic Class
"All Draper and Kramer Mortgage Corp. Loan Officers
throughout the United States employed at any time between
March 15, 2020 and May 1, 2021."
As contemplated by the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. sections
201, et seq. (FLSA), the Plaintiff Vasquez brings this action
arising from violations of the FLSA on his own behalf and on behalf
of those "similarly situated" employees of Defendant Draper and
Kramer.
This is a hybrid class and collective action, asserting claims
under both federal and state laws arising from the same facts and
circumstances. As federal and state law claims are subject to
distinct procedural and legal requirements, the plaintiffs in a
hybrid action must independently satisfy the requirements under
both frameworks to successfully assert their claims on a
representative basis.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 10, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2WenGHW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy P. Rumberger, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY P. RUMBERGER
1339 Bay Street
Alameda, CA 94501
Telephone: (510) 841-5500
Facsimile: (510)521-9700
E-mail: tim@rumbergerlaw.com
- and -
Kevin R. Allen, Esq.
ALLEN ATTORNEY GROUP
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 290
Walnut Creek, CA 94549
Telephone: (925) 695-4913
Facsimile: (925) 334-7477
E-mail: Kevin@allenattorneygroup.com
DUCKMILL LLC: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Gomez Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
LAZARO VENTURA GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DUCKMILL LLC DBA BERKSHIRE HOUSE,
RAMI HADDAD, BERKSHIRE RESTAURANT, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV30300 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., August 17, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code including failure to
compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to pay wages when employment ends, failure to
pay wages owed every pay period, failure to maintain accurate
records, failure to give rest breaks, and failure to give meal
breaks.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt cook,
dishwasher, food preparer, and cleaner at Berkshire House in Van
Nuys, California from December 2019 until his termination on March
20, 2021.
Duckmill LLC, doing business as Berkshire House, is a restaurant
owner and operator, with its principal place of business located at
7730 Lemona Ave., Van Nuys, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sevag Nigoghosian, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SEVAG NIGOGHOSIAN
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 956-1111
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
EMERSON ELECTRIC: Venhaus, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. WET/DRY VAC
MARKETING AND SALES LITIGATION, Case No. 4:12-md-02382-HEA (E.D.
Mo.), the Plaintiffs Chad Venhaus, Justin Swires, Lauren Checki,
Kevin Brees, Chris Willis, and Fred Wilmer ask the Court to enter
an order:
1. certifying this action as a class action;
2. defining the subclasses; and
3. appointing class counsel.
Emerson Electric is an American multinational corporation
headquartered in Ferguson, Missouri.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 16, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y8iTVJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric D. Holland, Esq.
R. Seth Crompton, Esq.
HOLLAND LAW FIRM
300 N. Tucker Blvd., Suite 801
Saint Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 241-8111
Facsimile: (314) 241-5554
E-mail: eholland@hollandtriallawyers.com
scrompton@hollandtriallawyers.com
- and -
John G. Simon, Esq.
Anthony G. Simon, Esq.
THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
800 Market Street, Suite 1700
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314)241-2929
Facsimile: (314)241-2029
E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com
asimon@simonlawpc.com
- and -
Richard J. Arsenault, Esq.
NEBLETT, BEARD & ARSENAULT
2220 Bonaventure Court
P.O. Box 12120
Alexandria, LA 71315
Telephone: (318) 561-2500
Facsimile: (318) 561-2592
E-mail: rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN, SEDRAN
& BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215)592-1500
Facsimile: (215)592-4663
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
EPIC LIFT: Faces Castro Suit Over Failure to Pay Field Techs' OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SHEA CASTRO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EPIC LIFT SYSTEMS, LLC & TALLY
PERSONNEL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00772 (W.D. Tex.,
August 13, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a field technician
from approximately June 2018 until early 2021.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated field techs regularly worked more than 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiff averaged 60 to 70 hours a week. However, the
Defendants did not pay them overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 in a single workweek. Instead, the
Defendants paid them according to the "salary plus" pay plan
without overtime compensation, says the suit.
Epic Lift Systems, LLC provides artificial lift solutions to
exploration and production (E&P) companies. Tally Personnel, LLC is
an employment agency. Epic and Tally are referred to collectively
as "Defendants." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
FACEBOOK INC: Cliffy Antitrust Suit Moved From D.D.C. to S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CLIFFY CARE LANDSCAPING LLC, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated v. FACEBOOK, INC., GOOGLE LLC,
and ALPHABET INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00360, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 17,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-06910-PKC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act by conspiring to allocate to one another the
advertisers and publishers affiliated with each network and to
eliminate competition between them in the open display advertising
market.
Cliffy Care Landscaping LLC is a landscaping company, with a
principal place of business located at 15837 S. Mahaffie Street,
Olathe, Kansas.
Facebook, Inc. is an American multinational technology company,
with its principal place of business at 1601 Willow Road, Menlo
Park, California.
Google LLC is an American multinational technology company, with
its principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway,
Mountain View, California.
Alphabet Inc. is an American multinational conglomerate
headquartered in Mountain View, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan L. Rubin, Esq.
MOGINRUBIN LLP
1615 M Street, NW, Third Floor
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 630-0616
Facsimile: (877) 247-8586
E-mail: jrubin@moginrubin.com
- and –
Daniel J. Mogin, Esq.
Jennifer M. Oliver, Esq.
Timothy Z. LaComb, Esq.
MOGINRUBIN LLP
600 West Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 687-6611
Facsimile: (619) 687-6610
E-mail: dmogin@moginrubin.com
joliver@moginrubin.com
tlacomb@moginrubin.com
- and –
Richard F. Lombardo, Esq.
Peter F. Rottgers, Esq.
SHAFFER LOMBARDO SHURIN
2001 Wyandotte Street
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 931-0500
Facsimile: (816) 931-5775
E-mail: rlombardo@sls-law.com
prottgers@sls-law.com
FANNIE MAE: Cacciapalle Seeks Certification of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock
Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations, Case No.
1:13-mc-01288-RCL (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs Joseph Cacciapalle,
Michelle M. Miller, Timothy J. Cassell, and Barry P. Borodkin ask
the Court to enter an order:
a. certifying case as class action pursuant to Rules 23(a)
and 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on
behalf of three Classes consisting of:
(1) All current holders of junior preferred stock in
Fannie Mae as of the date of certification, or their
successors in interest to the extent shares are sold
after the date of certification and before any final
judgment or settlement (the "Fannie Preferred Class");
(2) All current holders of junior preferred stock in
Freddie Mac as of the date of certification, or their
successors in interest to the extent shares are sold
after the date of certification and before any final
judgment or settlement (the "Freddie Preferred
Class"); and
(3) All current holders of common stock in Freddie Mac as
of the date of certification, or their successors in
interest to the extent shares are sold after the date
of certification and before any final judgment or
settlement (the "Freddie Common Class").
Excluded from all Classes are the defendants, the
United States Department of the Treasury, and their
respective officers and directors; and
b. designating them as class representatives and designating
the law firms of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., and
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as Co-Lead Class
Counsel.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Aug. 12,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3D2RqIy
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric L. Zagar, Esq.
Lee D. Rudy, Esq.
Grant Goodhart, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Rd.
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: ezagar@ktmc.com
lrudy@ktmc.com
ggoodhart@ktmc.com
- and -
Michael J. Barry, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
123 Justison Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 622-7000
Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
E-mail: mbarry@gelaw.com
- and -
Hamish P.M. Hume, Esq.
Samuel Kaplan, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
1401 New York Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 237-2727
Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
E-mail: hhume@bsfllp.com
skaplan@bsfllp.com
- and -
Adam Wierzbowski, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER &
GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
E-mail: adam@blbglaw.com
FCA US: Bledsoe, et al., Seek to Certify Classes
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES BLEDSOE, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FCA
US LLC, a Delaware corporation, and CUMMINS INC., an Indiana
corporation, Case No. 4:16-cv-14024-TGB-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following
Classes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3):
-- Nationwide Class (RICO and breach of contract claims)
"All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle in the
United States from an FCA-authorized dealer or
distributor;"
-- California Class (consumer protection and fraudulent
concealment claims)
"All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an FCA-
authorized dealer or distributor in California;"
-- Idaho Class (consumer protection and fraudulent
concealment claims):
"All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an FCA-
authorized dealer or distributor in Idaho;"
-- Illinois Class (consumer protection and fraudulent
concealment claims):
"All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an FCA-
authorized dealer or distributor in Illinois;"
-- Michigan Class (consumer protection and fraudulent
concealment claims):
"All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an FCA-
authorized dealer or distributor in Michigan;"
-- New Mexico Class (consumer protection and fraudulent
concealment claims):
"All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an FCA-
authorized dealer or distributor in New Mexico;"
-- North Carolina Class (consumer protection and
fraudulent concealment claims):
"All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an FCA-
authorized dealer or distributor in North Carolina;"
-- South Carolina Class (fraudulent concealment claim):
"All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an FCA-
authorized dealer or distributor in South Carolina."
-- Texas Class (consumer protection and fraudulent
concealment claims):
"All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an FCA-
authorized dealer or distributor in Texas."
The Plaintiffs also move for the appointment of Plaintiffs James
Bledsoe, Michael Erben, Dawn Roberts, Marc Ganz, Marty Witberg,
Martin Ward, Jeremy Perdue, James Forshaw, and Paul Chouffet as
Class Representatives and the appointment of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP; The Miller Law Firm P.C.; Carella, Byrne, Cecchi,
Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C.; and Seeger Weiss LLP as Class
Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).
FCA designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 16, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Weo4WG at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
jerrodp@hbsslaw.com
- and -
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Jr., Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
ssa@millerlawpc.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
77 Water Street
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 584-0700
E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
- and -
Paul J. Geller, Esq.
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
FEDERAL ADJUSTMENT: Christian Sues Over Illegal Collection Letters
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SELENA CHRISTIAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU,
INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03604 (E.D.
Penn., August 12, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a
collection letter on or about November 17, 2020 in an attempt to
collect an alleged debt incurred by the Plaintiff to New Horizon
Housing. The Defendants' letter deceptively demands a past due
payment and references a promise to make timely payments although
there was no payment plan or agreement was ever established between
the Plaintiff and the Defendants, nor did the Plaintiff "promise"
to make any specific payments. The Defendants' collection letter
confused and misled the Plaintiff as to the status of the debt and
to her rights, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action complaint on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated individuals seeking
for statutory and actual damages, litigation costs, reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Federal Adjustment Bureau, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Antraig Garibian, Esq.
GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 326-9179
E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Shimonov Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Rafic Shimonov, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Financial
Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04690 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 19,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Financial Recovery Services, Inc. -- https://www.fin-rec.com/ --
provides debt collection services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (718) 705-8706
Fax: (718) 705-8705
Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com
FLOR DE MAYO INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Avila Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
GAUDECIO AVILA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLOR DE MAYO, INC. (D/B/A FLOR DE MAYO);
PHILIP CHU; DENNIS CHU; and JOSE CHU, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-06790 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2021) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Avila was employed by the Defendants as dishwasher.
FLOR DE MAYO, INC. owned, operated, or controlled a Chinese-Latino
restaurant, located at New York, New York, under the name "Flor de
Mayo". [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, New York 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL: Garcia Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANNETTE GARCIA, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY BOARD OF
TRUSTEES, Case No. 2021-010899-CA-13, was removed from the Circuit
Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit for Miami-Dade County,
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on August 18, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-22988-KMW to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract,
unjust enrichment, violation of the takings clause of the U.S.
Constitution, and inverse condemnation under the Florida
Constitution.
Florida International University is a public research university
with its main campus in University Park, Florida. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Eric D. Isicoff, Esq.
Matthew L. Lines, Esq.
ISICOFF RAGATZ
601 Brickell Key Drive, Suite 750
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 373-3232
Facsimile: (305) 373-3233
E-mail: Isicoff@irlaw.com
Lines@irlaw.com
G.L.A. COLLECTION: Daniels Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against G.L.A. COLLECTION
CO., INC. The case is styled as Preston Daniels, Mary Daniels, as
Natural Parents and Guardians of B. D.; Timothy Joest; John Strube;
and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
G.L.A. COLLECTION CO., INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-02276-TWP-MJD (S.D.
Ind., Aug. 19, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
G. L. A. Collection Company -- https://glacompany.com/ -- is a
third party debt collector.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas E. Irons, Esq.
Richard John Shea, Jr., Esq.
SAWIN & SHEA, LLC
6100 North Keystone Ave., Suite 620
Indianapolis, IN 46220
Phone: (317) 255-2600
Fax: (317) 255-2905
Email: tirons@sawinlaw.com
rshea@sawinlaw.com
GATES CORP: Amended Settlement Agreement in Lundine Suit Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PEGGY LYNN LUNDINE on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GATES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 6:18-cv-1235 (D. Kan.), Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas grants approval to
the parties' Amended Stipulation of Settlement Agreement and
Release.
On May 5, 2021, Named Plaintiff Lundine filed with the Court a
Joint Motion and Memorandum of Law for Approval of Stipulation of
Settlement Agreement and Release for Collective Action in the
conditionally certified collective class action under Section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act against the Defendant Gates
in the Civil Action. On May 28, 2021, the Parties filed a Joint
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Stipulation of Settlement
Agreement and Release, to which was attached the Amended
Stipulation of Settlement Agreement and Release negotiated and
agreed to by the Parties and describing the settlement of the Civil
Action.
On May 5, 2021, the Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for
Approval of Attorney's Fees, Costs and Service Award along with a
supporting memorandum and exhibits.
On June 6, 2021, the Court entered an Order Preliminary Granting
Parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Amended Stipulation of
Settlement and Release for Collective Class. It preliminarily found
that the Settlement Agreement was fair, reasonable, adequate, and
in the best interests of the Named Plaintiff and Collective Class
Members and should be approved. The Court certified Peggy Lundine
as the Named Plaintiff and representative of the Collective Class
in negotiation of the Amended Settlement Agreement. It approved the
Notice to the Collective Class attached as Exhibit B to the Amended
Settlement Agreement and found that it fully and accurately
informed the Collective Class Members of all material elements of
the Civil Action and provided procedures for contesting the
fairness of, or objecting to, the Amended Settlement Agreement.
Finally, the Court set a Fairness Hearing for Aug. 6, 2021, whereby
Collective Class Members will have an opportunity to address the
fairness of the Amended Settlement Agreement or an objection to the
same.
On July 16, 2021, the Named Plaintiff filed a Status Report with
the Court. The deadline for any Collective Class Member to submit a
written objection per the Amended Settlement Agreement -- and set
forth in Notice to the Collective Class Members -- was July 9,
2021. Per the Notice, any such objection should have been provided
to the Named Plaintiff's counsel Brendan J. Donelon of Donelon,
P.C. by the July 9, 2021 deadline. In her July 16 Status Report,
the Named Plaintiff informed the Court that as of the date of that
filing, no objections to the Settlement Agreement were received.
Per the information set forth in the Notice to the Collective
Class, on Aug. 6, 2021, the Court held a Fairness Hearing at 9:00
a.m.
Judge O'Hara has duly considered all of the submissions presented
with respect to the Motion and the Named Plaintiff's Unopposed
Motion for Approval of Attorney's Fees, Costs and Service Award. He
finds that the Amended Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable and
adequate, is in the best interests of the Named Plaintiff and the
Collective Class Members and should be approved. He also finds that
that attorney's fees and costs requested by Named Plaintiff's
counsel Donelon, P.C. are fair and reasonable as requested in the
Amended Settlement Agreement for the reasons set forth in Named
Plaintiff's memorandum.
Per the Amended Settlement Agreement, the Judge approves a service
award from the Settlement Fund in the amount of $2,000 to the Named
Plaintiff Peggy Lundine for the reasons set forth in Named
Plaintiff's memorandum.
The Amended Settlement Agreement is approved in accordance with
Section 216 of the Fair Labor Standards Act and will be consummated
in accordance with the terms and provisions thereof.
The Civil Action is dismissed in its entirety, on the merits, as
against the Defendant with prejudice, and without costs to any
party, except to the extent otherwise expressly provided in the
Amended Settlement Agreement. The Court intends the Order to be
"Final" within the meaning of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Judge O'Hara finds, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), that there
is no just reason for delay, and directs the Clerk to enter the
Approval Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/thkm88w from Leagle.com.
GENWORTH LIFE: Brighton Trustees Seeks Class Action Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIGHTON TRUSTEES, LLC, AS
TRUSTEE, et al., v. GENWORTH LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00240-DJN (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs Brighton
Trustees, LLC, on behalf of and as trustee for Diamond LS Trust;
Bank of Utah, solely as securities intermediary for Diamond LS
Trust; and Ronald L. Daubenmier, ask the Court to enter an order
1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Rule
23(a) and 23(b)(3);
3. appointing them as Class Representatives; and
4. appointing Susman Godfrey L.L.P. as Class Counsel.
Genworth Life operates as an insurance firm. The Company offers
life, accident, and health insurance services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 16,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gmKbl2
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Interim Lead Class Counsel are:
Kathleen J.L. Holmes, Esq.
Ellen D. Marcus, Esq.
Kathleen J.L. Holmes, Esq.
HOLMES COSTIN & MARCUS PLLC
301 N. Fairfax Street, Suite 202
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: 703-260-6401
Facsimile: 703-439-1873
E-mail: emarcus@hcmlawva.com
kholmes@hcmlawva.com
- and -
Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
Lora J. Krsulich, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
lkrsulich@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Seth Ard, Esq.
Ryan Kirkpatrick, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: 212-336-8330
Facsimile: 212-336-8340
E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com
rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Jonathan J. Ross, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: 713-653-7813
Facsimile: 713-654-3399
E-mail: jross@susmangodfrey.com
The Attorneys for the Plaintiff Daubenmier are:
Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN &
BALINT, PC.
2325 East Camelback Road, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 274-110
Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
fbalint@bffb.com
GEO GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Purported Class Suit in Florida Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The GEO Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the purported shareholder class action suit pending before
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, is pending.
On July 7, 2020, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, George C.
Zoley, and its Chief Financial Officer, Brian R. Evans, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
On October 1, 2020, the court entered an unopposed order appointing
lead plaintiffs, approving the selection of counsel, dismissing the
initial complaint, and setting a deadline for the filing of an
amended complaint.
On November 18, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
class action amended complaint.
The amended complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Zoley
and Evans––as well as J. David Donahue, the Company's former
Senior Vice President and President of the U.S. Secure Services
division, and Ann M. Schlarb, the Company's Senior Vice President
and President of the GEO Care division––made materially false
and misleading statements and/or omissions related to GEO's
business––including quality of operations, corporate social
responsibility, competitive strengths, business strategies, health
and safety, sources of financing, dividend expectations, and
COVID-19 procedures.
The amended complaint is brought by lead plaintiffs James Michael
DeLoach and Edward Oketola, individually and on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities––other than the
defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, members of
their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns and any entity in which the defendants have
or had a controlling interest––who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's securities during the alleged class period
from November 7, 2018 to August 5, 2020, inclusive. The amended
complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges that Messrs. Zoley,
Evans, and Donahue and Ms. Schlarb violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.
The amended complaint seeks damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
expert fees, other costs, and such other relief as the court may
deem proper.
On December 18, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on
January 19, 2021, and defendants' reply was filed on February 2,
2021.
The motion to dismiss is now fully briefed.
The GEO Group, Inc. is the first fully-integrated equity real
estate investment trust specializing in the design, financing,
development, and operation of correctional, detention, and
community reentry facilities around the globe. The company is based
in Boca Raton, Florida.
GEO GROUP: In-Person Jury Re-Trial to Begin Oct. 12
---------------------------------------------------
The GEO Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court overseeing two
Washington cases ruled that the in-person jury re-trial is set to
begin on October 12, 2021.
Former civil immigration detainees at the Aurora ICE Processing
Center filed a class action lawsuit on October 22, 2014, against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado.
The complaint alleges that the Company was in violation of the
Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act and the Federal Trafficking
Victims Protection Act ("TVPA").
The plaintiff class claims that the Company was unjustly enriched
because of the level of payment the detainees received for work
performed at the facility, even though the voluntary work program
as well as the wage rates and standards associated with the program
that are at issue in the case are authorized by the Federal
government under guidelines approved by the United States Congress.
On July 6, 2015, the court found that detainees were not employees
under the Colorado Minimum Wage Order and dismissed this claim.
In February 2017, the court granted the plaintiff-class' motion for
class certification on the TVPA and unjust enrichment claims. The
plaintiff class seeks actual damages, compensatory damages,
exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys' fees
and costs, and such other relief as the court may deem proper. In
the time since the Colorado suit was initially filed, three similar
lawsuits have been filed - two in Washington and one in California.
The first of the two Washington lawsuits was filed on September 9,
2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington.
The second lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2017 by the State
Attorney General against the Company in the Superior Court of the
State of Washington for Pierce County, which the Company removed to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on
October 9, 2017.
In California, a class-action lawsuit was filed on December 19,
2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S.
District Court Eastern Division of the Central District of
California. All three lawsuits allege violations of the respective
state's minimum wage laws.
However, the California lawsuit, like the Colorado suit, also
includes claims that the Company violated the TVPA and California's
equivalent state statute. The California court certified a
nationwide class which would allow the plaintiffs to primarily seek
injunctive relief or policy changes at a number of facilities if
they are successful on the merits of their claims.
On August 9, 2021, the California court will conduct a hearing on
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Decertify
Class, as well as Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
On July 2, 2019, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in
the Washington Attorney General's Tacoma lawsuit based on the
Company's position that its legal defenses prevent the case from
proceeding to trial.
The federal court in Washington denied the Company's Motion for
Summary Judgment on August 6, 2019.
However, on August 20, 2019, the United States Department of
Justice filed a Statement of Interest, which asked the Washington
court to revisit its prior denial of the Company's
intergovernmental immunity defense in the case. While the
Washington court ultimately elected not to dismiss the case at the
time, its order importantly declared that the Company's
intergovernmental immunity defense was legally viable, to be
ultimately determined at trial.
After putting them on "standby" for most of 2020 due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, the trial court entered an order setting both
suits for an estimated three-week trial beginning June 1, 2021. The
court ordered a remote trial, but with the possibility of in-person
proceedings. The order notes the Company's exception to the remote
trial setting.
The Company filed a motion for reconsideration of the judge's order
setting a remote trial on April 8, 2021, requesting that the trial
date be moved from June 1, 2021 to the earliest possible date after
July 1, 2021, when the State of Washington plans to allow in-person
trials to resume.
On April 9, 2021, the Washington court denied the motion for
reconsideration for an in-person trial, ruling that a "hybrid"
trial, with some parts being conducted in-person with COVID-19
precautions, will begin on June 1, 2021. On June 1, 2021, the
remote Zoom trial began.
On June 17, 2021, the trial judge declared a mistrial when the jury
was unable to reach a unanimous verdict.
The in-person jury re-trial is set to begin on October 12, 2021.
The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously
defend itself and has consistently refuted the allegations and
claims in these lawsuits. The Company has not recorded an accrual
relating to these matters at this time, as a loss is not considered
probable nor reasonably estimable at this stage of the lawsuits.
The GEO Group, Inc. is the first fully-integrated equity real
estate investment trust specializing in the design, financing,
development, and operation of correctional, detention, and
community reentry facilities around the globe. The company is based
in Boca Raton, Florida.
GILEAD SCIENCES: HIV Meds-Related Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------
Gilead Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit related to various drugs used to treat
HIV, including drugs used in combination with antiretroviral
therapy.
The company (along with Japan Tobacco, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company ("BMS") and Johnson & Johnson, Inc.) have been named as
defendants in class action lawsuits filed in 2019 and 2020 related
to various drugs used to treat HIV, including drugs used in
combination antiretroviral therapy.
Japan Tobacco was dismissed from the lawsuit after a favorable
court ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs allege that the company (and the other remaining
defendants) engaged in various conduct to restrain competition in
violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer
protection laws.
The lawsuits, which have been consolidated, are pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.
The lawsuits seek to bring claims on behalf of two nationwide
classes - one of direct purchasers consisting largely of
wholesalers, and another of end-payor purchasers, including health
insurers and individual patients.
Plaintiffs seek damages, permanent injunctive relief and other
relief.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Gilead Sciences, Inc., incorporated in Delaware on June 22, 1987,
is a research-based biopharmaceutical company that discovers,
develops and commercializes innovative medicines in areas of unmet
medical need. With each new discovery and investigational drug
candidate, the company strives to transform and simplify care for
people with life-threatening illnesses around the world. The
company is based in Foster City, California.
GILEAD SCIENCES: Jacksonville Trust Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Gilead Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by Jacksonville Police
Officers and Fire Fighters Health Insurance Trust.
In September 2020, the company along with generic manufacturers
Cipla Ltd. and Cipla USA Inc. were named as defendants in a class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California by Jacksonville Police Officers and Fire
Fighters Health Insurance Trust ("Jacksonville Trust") on behalf of
end-payor purchasers.
Jacksonville Trust claims that the 2014 settlement agreement
between us and Cipla, which settled a patent dispute relating to
patents covering our Emtriva, Truvada, and Atripla products and
permitted generic entry prior to patent expiry, violates certain
federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws.
Plaintiffs seek damages, permanent injunctive relief and other
relief.
Gilead Sciences, Inc., incorporated in Delaware on June 22, 1987,
is a research-based biopharmaceutical company that discovers,
develops and commercializes innovative medicines in areas of unmet
medical need. With each new discovery and investigational drug
candidate, the company strives to transform and simplify care for
people with life-threatening illnesses around the world. The
company is based in Foster City, California.
GILEAD SCIENCES: Product Liability Suits Over HIV Drugs Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gilead Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit related to the side effects of its HIV
drugs, namely, Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera, and Stribild.
The company had been named as a defendant in two class action
lawsuits and various product liability lawsuits related to Viread,
Truvada, Atripla, Complera and Stribild. Plaintiffs allege that
Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and/or Stribild caused them to
experience kidney, bone and/or tooth injuries.
The lawsuits, which are pending in state or federal court in
California, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Washington, Washington D.C.
and Wisconsin, involve more than 23,000 plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs in these cases seek damages and other relief on various
grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss.
Gilead said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these
actions. While we believe these cases are without merit, we cannot
predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful in their
claims, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Gilead Sciences, Inc., incorporated in Delaware on June 22, 1987,
is a research-based biopharmaceutical company that discovers,
develops and commercializes innovative medicines in areas of unmet
medical need. With each new discovery and investigational drug
candidate, the company strives to transform and simplify care for
people with life-threatening illnesses around the world. The
company is based in Foster City, California.
GILEAD SCIENCES: Putative Class Suit vs Immunomedics Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gilead Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that Immunomedics, Inc.
continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit
related to its Biologics License Application for Trodelvy.
Immunomedics and several of its former officers and directors have
been named as defendants in putative class actions filed in 2018
and 2019.
The lawsuits were consolidated in September 2019, and plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint in November 2019.
Plaintiffs allege that Immunomedics and the individual defendants
violated the federal securities laws in connection with
Immunomedics' Biologics License Application for Trodelvy, and seek
certification of a class of shareholders, damages and other relief.
The consolidated lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.
Gilead said, "While we believe this case is without merit, we
cannot predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful
in their claims, we could be required to pay significant monetary
damages."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Gilead Sciences, Inc., incorporated in Delaware on June 22, 1987,
is a research-based biopharmaceutical company that discovers,
develops and commercializes innovative medicines in areas of unmet
medical need. With each new discovery and investigational drug
candidate, the company strives to transform and simplify care for
people with life-threatening illnesses around the world. The
company is based in Foster City, California.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Toss US Treasury Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in consolidated putative
class action suit related to the sale of U.S. Treasury securities,
is pending.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the primary dealers named
as defendants in several putative class actions relating to the
market for U.S. Treasury securities, filed beginning in July 2015
and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
GS&Co. is also among the primary dealers named as defendants in a
similar individual action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on August 25, 2017. The consolidated
class action complaint, filed on December 29, 2017, generally
alleges that the defendants violated antitrust laws in connection
with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the when-issued market and
auctions for U.S. Treasury securities and that certain defendants,
including GS&Co., colluded to preclude trading of U.S. Treasury
securities on electronic trading platforms in order to impede
competition in the bidding process.
The individual action alleges a similar conspiracy regarding
manipulation of the when-issued market and auctions, as well as
related futures and options in violation of the Commodity Exchange
Act.
The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, treble
damages in an unspecified amount and restitution.
Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted on March 31, 2021.
On May 14, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
On June 14, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Cert. Bid in Lending Antitrust Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 motion for class
certification in the putative antitrust class action suit filed
before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, is pending.
Group Inc. and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) are among the
defendants named in a putative antitrust class action and three
individual actions relating to securities lending practices filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
beginning in August 2017.
The complaints generally assert claims under federal and state
antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged
conspiracy among the defendants to preclude the development of
electronic platforms for securities lending transactions.
The individual complaints also assert claims for tortious
interference with business relations and under state trade
practices law and, in the second and third individual actions,
unjust enrichment under state common law.
The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble, punitive and other
damages. Group Inc. was voluntarily dismissed from the putative
class action on January 26, 2018.
Defendants' motion to dismiss the class action complaint was denied
on September 27, 2018. Defendants moved to dismiss the second
individual action on December 21, 2018. In June 2019, the third
individual action was consolidated with the second individual
action. After that consolidation, the court ordered that the
pending motion to dismiss in the second individual action apply to
the newly consolidated matter.
Defendants' motion to dismiss the first individual action was
granted on August 7, 2019. The plaintiffs in the putative class
action moved for class certification on February 22, 2021.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Consolidated Suit Over Mortgage Matters Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 proceedings in
the consolidated suit against Group, Inc. over mortgage-related
matters, is ongoing.
Beginning in April 2010, a number of purported securities law class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group Inc.'s
public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's activities in
the collateralized debt obligation market, and the firm's conflict
of interest management.
The consolidated amended complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which
named as defendants Group Inc. and certain current and former
officers and employees of Group Inc. and its affiliates, generally
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and seeks monetary damages. The defendants have moved for summary
judgment.
On April 7, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
district court's August 14, 2018 grant of class certification.
On June 21, 2021, the United States Supreme Court vacated the
judgment of the Second Circuit and remanded the case for further
proceedings.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Array Technologies IPO Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Goldman Sachs & Co.
LLC is facing a putative class action suit related to Array
Technologies, Inc.'s $1.2 billion October 2020 initial public
offering of common stock, $1.3 billion December 2020 offering of
common stock and $993 million March 2021 offering of common stock.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named
as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on May
14, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, relating to Array Technologies, Inc.'s $1.2 billion
October 2020 initial public offering of common stock, $1.3 billion
December 2020 offering of common stock and $993 million March 2021
offering of common stock.
In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Array and
certain of its officers and directors.
GS&Co. underwrote an aggregate of 31,912,213 shares of common stock
in the three offerings representing an aggregate offering price of
approximately $877 million.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces ContextLogic $1.1 Billion IPO Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Goldman Sachs & Co.
LLC is facing a putative securities class action suit related to
ContextLogic, Inc.'s $1.1 billion December 2020 initial public
offering of common stock.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is among the underwriters named as
defendants in two putative securities class actions filed on May
17, 2021 and May 25, 2021, respectively, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, relating to ContextLogic,
Inc.'s (ContextLogic) $1.1 billion December 2020 initial public
offering of common stock.
In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include
ContextLogic and certain of its officers and directors.
GS&Co. underwrote 16,169,000 shares of common stock representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $388 million.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GREEN DOT: Robbins Geller Named Lead Counsel in Koffsmon Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ESTEBAN KOFFSMON, Plaintiff v. GREEN DOT CORPORATION,
ET AL., Defendants, Case No. CV 19-10701 DDP (Ex) (C.D. Cal.),
Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California appointed New York Hotel Trades Council &
Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund as the Lead
Class Plaintiff and approved the Pension Fund's selection of Robins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as the Lead Counsel.
Green Dot is a publicly-traded "financial technology" and "bank
holding company." Its products include re-loadable debit cards,
branded gift cards, and checking accounts. Beginning in May 2018,
Defendants issued several press releases and other statements
touting Green Dot's revenue growth and increased user base.
Beginning in February 2019, and again in May, August, and November,
Green Dot and its officers issued further quarterly reports, press
releases, and statements that, according to the Complaint,
indicated that the prior representations about Green Dot's 2018
successes were false and misleading. In essence, the 2019
statements allegedly revealed that Green Dot's 2018 growth was the
product of a misguided strategy of pursuing less-profitable
long-term customers over more profitable short-term customers,
including an effort to convert the latter to the former, resulting
in higher than expected declines in Green Dot's revenue in 2019.
Green Dot's share price declined significantly after each quarterly
revelation. The putative class action complaint for securities law
violations followed.
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3), five prospective lead
class Plaintiffs filed motions to be appointed the Lead Class
Plaintiff,: Fred Schaebsdau; the "Green Dot Institutional Investor
Group," comprised of Plymouth County Retirement Association,
Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund, and Iron Workers
District Council of New England (collectively, "IIG"); John
Mustavage and Austin Fire Fighters Relief and Retirement Fund
(collectively, "Austin Group"); City of Sarasota General Employees'
Defined Benefit Pension Plan and City of Sarasota Firefighters'
Pension Plan (collectively, "Sarasota Group"); and New York Hotel
Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension
Plan.
The Sarasota Group has filed a non-opposition to the other,
competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff. Schaebsdau and
the Austin Group have not filed oppositions to any motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff. The Court deems those failures to
oppose as consent to the granting of the competing motions. The
Green Dot Institutional Investor Group and the Pension Fund have
opposed each other's motions. The Court, therefore, addresses these
two remaining competing motions.
Discussion
A. Largest Financial Interest
The PSLRA "provides in categorical terms that the only basis on
which a court may compare plaintiffs competing to serve as lead is
the size of their financial stake in the controversy."
In the case, the constituent members of the IGG -- Plymouth County,
the Carpenters Fund, and the Iron Workers Council -- allege losses
of $592,917, $301,353, and $130,114, respectively. None of these
loss amounts, individually, exceeds the Pension Fund's alleged
losses of $662,539. In the aggregate, however, the IGG members'
losses total $1,071,666, an amount greater than that alleged by the
Pension Fund.
As stated, the PSLRA does not expressly prohibit groups from being
collectively appointed lead plaintiff. Nevertheless, the majority
of courts in this circuit have "refused to appoint as lead
plaintiff groups of unrelated individuals, brought together for the
sole purpose of aggregating their claims in an effort to become the
presumptive lead plaintiff. Thus, to allow the IGG to aggregate its
members' losses would be to undermine the PSLRA's objective of
preventing lawyer-driven litigation. Absent any authority, or
compelling reason why a group of three smaller investors would
better serve the interests of the class than a single, large,
institutional investor, Judge Pregerson concludes that the Pension
Fund has the largest financial interest in the relief sought.
B. Adequacy and Typicality under Rule 23
Having determined which putative lead plaintiff has the greatest
financial stake in the outcome of the case, Judge Pregerson "must
then focus its attention on that plaintiff and determine, based on
the information it has provided in its pleadings and declarations,
whether it satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a), in particular
those of 'typicality' and 'adequacy.'
IGG has not submitted any proof sufficient to rebut the Pension
Fund's showing of adequacy or typicality. Although IGG initially
appears to have suggested that the Pension Fund may be vulnerable
to a unique defense related to the timing of its share sales, IGG
later clarified that it "never suggested that in-and-out purchasers
do not have valid claims. Rather, IGG simply argued that it is a
particularly adequate group."
The Ninth Circuit, however, has expressly forbidden courts from
engaging in such a comparative analysis. "Once the court identifies
the plaintiff with the largest stake in the litigation, further
inquiry must focus on that plaintiff alone and be limited to
determining whether he satisfies the other statutory requirements.
That the district court believes another plaintiff may be 'more
adequate' is of no consequence." "So long as the plaintiff with the
largest losses satisfies the typicality and adequacy requirements,
he is entitled to lead plaintiff status, even if the district court
is convinced that some other plaintiff would do a better job."
Judge Pregerson will not, therefore, considers whether IGG would be
a "more adequate" plaintiff than the Pension Fund, and IGG has not
proved that the Pension Fund is an inadequate or atypical lead
Plaintiff.
Conclusion
For the reasons he stated, Judge Pregerson granted Pension Fund's
Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff. He denied all other
motions for appointment as lead plaintiff. The Judge appointed the
Pension Fund the Lead Plaintiff and approved its selection of
Robbins Geller as the Class Counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/29t8mhmr from Leagle.com.
GREENWAY HEALTH: Altamonte Suit Moved From M.D. Fla. to N.D. Ga.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Altamonte Pediatric
Associates, P.A. v. Greenway Health, LLC, Case No. 8:20-cv-00604,
was transferred from the the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Atlanta) on Aug. 2, 2021.
The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-03116-TCB to the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over Defendant's alleged breach of
contract.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.
Established in 1974, Altamonte Pediatric has provided healthcare to
children in Florida for more than 45 years. Like many healthcare
providers, Altamonte Pediatric desired certified Electronic Health
Record (EHR) software -- a type of business software that offers a
variety of features relevant to the practice of healthcare,
including (without limitation) access to patient medical records,
demographics, care history and allergies; electronic communication
with patients; and electronic placement of prescriptions.
Defendant Greenway Health is a Delaware Limited Liability Company.
Greenway previously operated under the name "Vitera Healthcare
Solutions, LLC" between 2011 and April 2014. Prior to using that
name, Greenway operated under the name "Sage Software
Healthcare."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brett A. Ialacci, Esq.
BADHAM & BUCK, LLC
2001 Park Place N, Suite 500
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 521-0036
Facsimile: (205) 521-0037
- and -
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK
1101 E. Cumberland Ave.
Suite 201H, No. 105
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
E-mail: bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
- and -
C. Cooper Knowles, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF C. COOPER KNOWLES, LLC
Bldg. 12, Suite 350
750 Hammond Dr.
Sandy Springs, GA 30328
Telephone: (770) 668-2081
Facsimile: (770) 668-2081
E-mail: cknowles@cckfirm.com
- and -
Caleb M. Hodge, Esq.
Michael J. Brickman, Esq.
Nina Fields Britt, Esq.
RICHARDSON, PATRICK
WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd.
Building A
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 727-6657
E-mail: chodge@rpwb.com
mbrickman@rpwb.com
nfields@rpwb.com
- and -
Gabriel A. Panek, Esq.
Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
John T. Nicolaou, Esq.
Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
LIEFF, CABRASHER
HEIMAN & BERNSTEIN, LLP-NY
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
E-mail: gpanek@lchb.com
jlichtman@lchb.com
jnicolaou@lchb.com
jselbin@lchb.com
mchalos@lchb.com
- and -
James C. Bradley, Esq.
Rogers, Patrick, Esq.
WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Bldg. A
Post Office Box 1007 (29465)
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 727-6500
E-mail: jbradley@rpwb.com
- and -
Timothy C. Bailey, Esq.
BAILEY JAVINS & CARTER LC
213 Hale Street, Ste.
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 345-0346
Facsimile: (304) 345-0375
E-mail: thigginbotham@bjc4u.com
- and -
Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP -- WOODSTOCK
133 Mirramont Lake Drive
Woodstock, GA 30189
Telephone: (770) 427-5600
Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Adam P. Schwartz, Esq.
David Matthew Allen, Esq.
Erin J. Hoyle, Esq.
Joseph W. Swanson, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS, PA-T.FL
4221 West Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 1000
P.O. Box 3239
Tampa, FL 33601-3239
Telephone: (813) 229-4336
Facsimile: (813) 229-4133
E-mail: aschwartz@carltonfields.com
mallen@carltonfields.com
ehoyle@carltonfields.com
jswanson@carltonfields.com
Movants Peter J. Grilli, Gregory P. Holder, Rumpelstiltskin, LLC,
and TheraNest, LLC, are represented by:
Samuel Bookhardt, IV, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
401 East Las Olas Boulevard., Suite 2000
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 468-1754
Facsimile: (954) 765-1477
Movant eMDs, Inc. is represented by:
James A. Washburn, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
600 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3000
Atlanta, GA 30308
Telephone: (404) 885-3000
E-mail: james.washburn@troutman.com
HC2 HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Fair Value Investments Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the putative class action suit initiated by Fair Value Investments
Incorporated ("FVI"), is pending.
On October 1, 2020, Fair Value Investments Incorporated ("FVI")
filed a putative stockholder class action and derivative complaint
in the Delaware Court of Chancery against HC2 and certain of DBM
Global Inc.'s (DBMG's) current and former officers and directors,
including current and former HC2 officers and directors AJ Stahl,
Kenneth S. Courtis, Robert V. Leffler, Jr., Philip A. Falcone,
Michael J. Sena, and Paul Voigt styled Fair Value Investments
Incorporated v. Roach, et al., C.A. No. 2020-0847-JTL (Del. Ch.).
In the FVI Action, FVI alleges that HC2, in its capacity as DBMG's
controlling stockholder, and DBMG's current and former officers and
directors breached their fiduciary duties to DBMG and DBMG's
minority stockholders by approving certain transactions that
allegedly provide disproportionate benefits to HC2.
FVI challenges the following transactions: (i) DBMG's payments to
HC2 from 2016–present pursuant to a Tax Sharing Agreement between
DBMG and HC2; (ii) DBMG acting as a guarantor or providing
collateral for loans taken on by HC2; (iii) DBMG's issuance of
dividends to its common and preferred stockholders in 2017–2020;
(iv) DBMG's issuance of preferred stock to HC2 to finance DBMG's
2018 acquisition of GrayWolf Industrial; and (v) HC2's appointment
of directors to DBMG's board of directors by written consent in
lieu of holding an annual stockholder meeting.
On February 23, 2021, FVI filed an Amended Verified Stockholder
Class Action Complaint.
In the Amended Complaint, FVI named two additional defendants:
HC2's Chief Executive Officer, Wayne Barr, and DBMG's General
Counsel, Scott D. Sherman.
The Amended Complaint includes additional fact allegations in
support of the largely similar claims raised in the original
complaint.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on April 23,
2021.
HC2 believes the allegations in the FVI Amended Complaint are
without merit and the HC2-related defendants have filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, which continues to be pending.
HC2 intends to vigorously defend this litigation.
HC2 Holdings, Inc. provides construction, marine services, energy,
telecommunications, insurance, life sciences, broadcasting, and
other services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
internationally. The company was formerly known as PTGi Holding
Inc. and changed its name to HC2 Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. HC2
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.
HC2 HOLDINGS: Bocock Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a stockholder class and derivative class action suit
entitled, Bocock, et al., v. HC2 Holdings, Inc. et al., C.A. No.
2021-0224 (Del. Ch.).
On March 15, 2021, twenty-two DTV America Corporation ("DTV")
stockholders and eight holders of DTV stock options filed a
stockholder class action and derivative complaint in the Delaware
Court of Chancery in an action styled Bocock, et al., v. HC2
Holdings, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 2021-0224 (Del. Ch.).
Plaintiffs named as defendants HC2 Holdings, Inc., HC2 Broadcasting
Holdings, Inc., HC2 Broadcasting Inc., and Continental General
Insurance Corporation (the "HC2 Entities") and certain current and
former officers and directors of the HC2 Entities and DTV,
including Phillip Falcone, Michael Sena, Wayne Barr, Jr., Les Levi,
Paul Voigt, Ivan Minkov, and Paul Robinson (the "Individual
Defendants").
Plaintiffs principally allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties and/or aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary
duty by participating in a "scheme" in which the HC2 Entities (i)
acquired majority voting and operating control over DTV; (ii)
exploited that control to misappropriate DTV's assets and business
opportunities for the benefit of the HC2 Entities; and (iii)
purchased DTV stock at a discount to fair value and diminished the
value of DTV stock options. Plaintiffs allege that the Individual
Defendants (i) "prompted" the HC2 Entities to purchase more than
100 low-power television ("LPTV") broadcast stations originally
identified for potential acquisition by DTV, (ii) allowed the HC2
Entities to misappropriate DTV technology, known as "DTV Cast,"
(iii) caused DTV to transfer unspecified LPTV broadcasting station
licenses to HC2 affiliates "without paying any value," and (iv)
transferred to the HC2 Entities unspecified DTV broadcasting
stations that had been "repacked" by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on May
19, 2021.
On June 23, 2021, plaintiffs amended their complaint. In the
amended complaint, plaintiffs assert the same claims they asserted
in their initial complaint, added a claim for waste associated with
DTV's purported transfer of licenses and construction permits for
less than fair value, and dropped Paul Robinson as a defendant. HC2
believes the allegations in the amended complaint are without merit
and the HC2-related defendants intend to move to dismiss the
amended complaint.
HC2 intends to vigorously defend this litigation.
HC2 Holdings, Inc. provides construction, marine services, energy,
telecommunications, insurance, life sciences, broadcasting, and
other services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
internationally. The company was formerly known as PTGi Holding
Inc. and changed its name to HC2 Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. HC2
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.
IMCMV HOLDINGS: Breeden Seeks Servers' Unpaid Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHITNEY BREEDEN, individually and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IMCMV HOLDINGS, INC. and IMCMV
PIGEON FORGE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00296 (E.D. Tenn.,
August 13, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against
the Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendants as one of their
tipped employees to serve their customers at their restaurants,
alleges that the Defendant had a centralized, uniform and common
plan, policy and practice of willfully refusing to pay him and
other similarly situated tipped employees at least the minimum wage
rate of $7.25 an hour for all unrelated "dual occupation" job
duties and other duties inherently unrelated to tip-producing work
and typically performed by non-tipped employees.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking compensation for unpaid
minimum wages at an hourly rate required by the FLSA for all time
spent performing related, non-tip producing job duties in excess of
20% of their worktime and an additional amount as liquidated
damages, together with interest, costs, and reasonable attorney's
fees for the three-year statutory period under the FLSA.
The Corporate Defendants operate restaurants. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT,
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Tel: (901) 754-8001
Fax: (901) 759-1745
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Court Dismisses Canez Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Intelligent Systems Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the securities class action suit headed by Edgardo
Canez, has been granted.
On or about July 9, 2019, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York (Case No. 1:19-cv-03949) by Michael Skrzeczkoski,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
against the company, and certain current and former directors and
officers.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of our
press releases and SEC filings were misleading as a result of the
failure to disclose alleged related party transactions affecting
revenue recognition and the absence of disclosure regarding certain
allegations against former director Parker H. Petit in connection
with his former position with MiMedx, Inc.
The complaint seeks to recover attorney's fees and costs and
unspecified damages on behalf of purchasers who acquired our stock
during the period from January 23, 2019, through May 29, 2019, and
purportedly suffered financial harm as a result of the alleged
misleading statements. On September 26, 2019, the Court appointed
Edgardo Canez as lead plaintiff on behalf of the putative class.
On November 18, 2019, Lead Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of
a putative class of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded company securities from May 23, 2014
through May 29, 2019, filed an amended class action complaint
against the company, and certain current and former directors and
officers.
The Amended Complaint alleges similar allegations in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as the
previously filed complaint.
The Amended Complaint seeks to recover attorney's fees and costs
and unspecified damages.
On January 2, 2020, Defendants submitted a motion to dismiss, and
on March 3, 2020, briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed.
On April 6, 2021, the Court entered an order granting the motion to
dismiss.
Intelligent Systems Corporation, incorporated on November 8, 1991,
is engaged in the business of providing technology solutions and
processing services to the financial technology and services
market. The Company's financial transaction solutions and services
(FinTech) operations are conducted through its CoreCard Software,
Inc. subsidiary. The company is based in Norcross, Georgia.
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Dismissal of Jansen Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. (IFF) said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 5, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that
the appeal on grant of dismissal of the putative securities class
suit initiated by Marc Jansen, is pending.
On August 12, 2019, Marc Jansen filed a putative securities class
action against IFF, its Chairman and CEO, and its then-CFO, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The lawsuit was filed after IFF disclosed that preliminary results
of investigations indicated that Frutarom businesses operating
principally in Russia and Ukraine had made improper payments to
representatives of customers.
On March 16, 2020, an amended complaint was filed, which added
Frutarom and certain former officers of Frutarom as defendants.
The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants
made materially false and misleading statements or omissions
concerning IFF's acquisition of Frutarom, the integration of the
two companies, and the companies' financial reporting and results.
The amended complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and under the
Israeli Securities Act-1968, against all defendants, and under
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the
individual defendants, on behalf of a putative class of persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired IFF securities on the
New York Stock Exchange between May 7, 2018 and August 12, 2019 and
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired IFF
securities on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange between October 9, 2018
and August 12, 2019.
The amended complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, costs, and expenses.
IFF, its officers, and Frutarom filed a motion to dismiss the case
on June 26, 2020, which was granted on March 30, 2021.
On April 28, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Lead plaintiffs are pursuing the appeal only against Frutarom and
certain former officers of Frutarom.
New York-based International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., together
with its subsidiaries, engages in the creation and manufacture of
flavor and fragrance products in the United States and
internationally.
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Mediation in Bonus Related Suit Unfruitful
-----------------------------------------------------------------
International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that counsel
to the movant in the class action filed a notice with the court
that the mediation process ended without an agreement.
On October 29, 2019, IFF and Frutarom filed a claim in the Tel Aviv
District Court, Israel, against Ori Yehudai, the former President
and CEO of Frutarom, and against certain former directors of
Frutarom, challenging the bonus of US $20 million granted to
Yehudai in 2018. IFF and Frutarom allege, among other things, that
Yehudai was not entitled to receive the bonus because he breached
his fiduciary duty by, among other things, knowing of the improper
payments and failing to prevent them from being made. The parties
agreed, pursuant to the court's recommendation, to attempt to
resolve the dispute through mediation, which is still ongoing,
during which the proceedings relating to this claim are stayed.
On March 11, 2020, an IFF shareholder filed a motion to approve a
class action in Israel against, among others, Frutarom, Ori
Yehudai, and Frutarom's former board of directors, alleging that
former minority shareholders of Frutarom were harmed as a result of
the US $20 million bonus paid to Yehudai.
The parties to this motion agreed to attempt to resolve the dispute
through mediation to take place regarding the aforesaid claim
against Yehudai.
On July 27, 2021, counsel to the movant in the class action filed a
notice with the court that the mediation process ended without an
agreement.
New York-based International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., together
with its subsidiaries, engages in the creation and manufacture of
flavor and fragrance products in the United States and
internationally.
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Securities Class Suits Underway in Tel Aviv
-------------------------------------------------------------------
International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company continues to defend putative securities class action suits
in Tel Aviv District Court, Israel.
Two motions to approve securities class actions were filed in the
Tel Aviv District Court, Israel, in August 2019, similarly
alleging, among other things, false and misleading statements
largely in connection with company's (IFF's) acquisition of
Frutarom and improper payments.
One motion ("Borg") asserts claims under the U.S. federal
securities laws against IFF, its Chairman and CEO, and its former
CFO.
On November 8, 2020, IFF and its officers filed their response to
the Borg motion. On April 20, 2021, Mr. Borg filed a motion to stay
the proceeding pending an appellate decision in the U.S.
proceeding.
The other motion ("Oman") (following an initial amendment) asserted
claims under the Israeli Securities Act-1968 against IFF, its
Chairman and CEO, and its former CFO, and against Frutarom and
certain former Frutarom officers and directors, as well as claims
under the Israeli Companies Act-1999 against certain former
Frutarom officers and directors.
On February 17, 2021, the court granted a motion by the Oman
plaintiff to remove IFF and its officers from the motion and to add
factual allegations from the US amended complaint. The amended Oman
motion was filed on July 4, 2021.
New York-based International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., together
with its subsidiaries, engages in the creation and manufacture of
flavor and fragrance products in the United States and
internationally.
INTERO REAL: Mitchell, Kelly Seek to Represent Certified Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUBY MITCHELL and EDWARD
J. KELLY, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, v. INTERO REAL ESTATE SERVICES, Case No.
5:18-cv-05623-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Plaintiffs Mitchell and Kelly ask
the Court to enter an order appointing them as representatives of
the certified National DNC Class and Internal DNC Class.
Plaintiff Mitchell is an 82-year-old woman who placed her home
landline number on the National Do Not Call Registry (NDNCR) in
July 2003. Plaintiff Kelly is an 80-year-old man who placed his
home landline number on the NDNCR in June 2003.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 11, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gj6Qia at no extra
charge.[CC]
Counsel for the Plaintiffs Ruby Mitchell and Edward J. Kelly and
the Classes, are:
Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
Mark Clifford, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com
hzavareei@tzlegal.com
mclifford@tzlegal.com
- and -
George V. Granade, Esq.
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
Charles D. Moore, Esq.
REESE LLP
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
Los Angeles, California 90211
Telephone: (310) 393-0070
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com
mreese@reesellp.com
cmoore@reesellp.com
INTRICON CORP: Settlement in Hoffman Suit Awaits Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intricon Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 26, 2021, that the
settlement agreement in the class action suit initiated by Mark
Hoffman was submitted to the Court for approval on July 28, 2021.
On October 9, 2019, plaintiff Mark Hoffman filed a putative class
action lawsuit against defendant Hearing Help Express, Inc.
("HHE"), a subsidiary of the Company, in the Federal District Court
for the Western District of Washington based on specific provisions
of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").
HHE's investigation revealed third-party lead generator Triangular
Media Corp. provided Hoffman's information to HHE. Hoffman claims
he did not provide the requisite prior express written consent for
auto-dialed telemarketing calls regarding hearing aids to be placed
to his cellphone.
He also claims he did not provide the requisite permission for
telemarketing calls to his number registered on the Do-Not-Call
("DNC") registry.
Since the initial complaint was filed, Hoffman amended his
complaint several times to add additional parties, including
Triangular, Triangular's alleged owner, an alleged entity related
to Triangular called LeadCreations.Com, LLC, Intricon, Inc., and
Intricon Corporation.
With respect to HHE, Hoffman sought to certify a class of certain
automated outbound telemarketing calls HHE allegedly made without
prior consent, or to those numbers on the DNC registry, in the last
four years. Hoffman also sought to hold the Company vicariously
liable for all of the calls HHE made without prior consent.
The potential exposure under the TCPA is $500 per call, or $1,500
per call if the violation is deemed willful or knowing.
On July 26, 2021, the Company and the other defendants entered into
a Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release ("Settlement
Agreement") with Hoffman for himself and on behalf of the
settlement class relating to this matter. The Settlement Agreement
was submitted to the Court for approval on July 28, 2021.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, among other things, (a) the
Company has agreed to pay total cash consideration of $1.3 million
into a settlement fund, and (b) Hoffman and the settlement class
members agreed to a release of claims against the Company,
Intricon, Inc. and HHE relating to any claim or potential claim
relating to the marketing activities described in the complaint.
The Settlement Agreement will become effective upon the first date
after which the following events and conditions have occurred: (a)
the Court has entered a final judgment; and (b) the final judgment
has become final in that the time for appeal or writ has expired
or, if any appeal and/or petition for review is taken and the
settlement is affirmed, the time period during which further
petition for hearing, appeal, or writ of certiorari can be taken
has expired.
The $1.3 million settlement fund has been fully accrued for in the
Company’s 2021 second quarter results because the amount of the
settlement was set forth in a confidential settlement term sheet
between the parties in June 2021.
The settlement fund is required to be paid within seven days after
the effective date. In entering into the Settlement Agreement, the
Company and the other defendants are making no admission of
liability.
The Settlement Agreement is subject to approval by the Court. If
the Court preliminarily approves the settlement, the Settlement
Agreement provides for a period of time during which class members
will be notified of the settlement and given an opportunity to file
a claim to receive a settlement payment, opt out of the class,
object to the settlement or do nothing.
The Company expects that the Court will schedule a fairness hearing
to occur after the notice period, at which time the parties will
request final approval of the settlement and at which any objectors
to the settlement will be heard.
Intricon said, "If the Court gives final approval to the
settlement, the release will be effective as to all class members
who do not validly out opt of the class, regardless of whether they
filed a claim form and received a payment."
Intricon Corporation (together with its subsidiaries is an
international company and joint development manufacturer ("JDM") of
micromedical components, sub-assemblies and final devices. The
Company serves as a JDM partner to leading medical device original
equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") by designing, developing,
engineering, manufacturing, packaging and distributing micromedical
products for high growth markets, such as diabetes, peripheral
vascular, interventional pulmonology, electrophysiology and hearing
healthcare. The company is based in Arden Hills, Minnesota.
KAAB INC: Lopez Labor Suit Seeks Minimum Wage for All Hours Worked
------------------------------------------------------------------
GRICELDA LOPEZ, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. KAAB, INC., a California corporation;
SOPHIE'S RB LLC d/b/a RIVIERA HOUSE, a California limited liability
company; and 610 AVENIDA VICTORIA RESTAURANT, LLC d/b/a PIERSIDE
KITCHEN BAR, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV28238 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Aug. 2, 2021) alleges that the Defendants violated
the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code by
failing to pay hourly, non-exempt employees a legal minimum wage
for all hours worked.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant permit their non-exempt
employees to work in excess of eight hours per day and/or in excess
of 40 hours per week without paying them overtime premium wages, in
violation of the Labor Code.
Defendants Kaab, Riviera and Pierside are commonly owned
restaurants and restaurant operators. The Plaintiff worked for the
Defendants as a pantry employee from August 5, 2019 through July 1,
2020.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shelley K. Mack, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR EMPLOYEE AND CONSUMER RIGHTS
4100 West Alameda Avenue, Third Floor
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (323) 302-8392
Facsimile: (323) 306-0551
E-mail: smack@lfecr.com
KASCHAK ROOFING: Fails to Pay Roofers' OT Wages, Millbeck Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW MILLBECK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KASCHAK ROOFING, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00967 (E.D. Wis., August 16, 2021) alleges the Defendant of
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a roofer,
asserts that although he worked more than 40 hours per week, the
Defendant did not pay him overtime premium pay at the rate of one
and one-half times his regular rate of pay for working more than 40
hours during a single week. Instead, the Plaintiff claims that he
was only paid a straight time wage on the check, or as per diem
computed as the employee's straight time wage rate x number of
hours worked over 40 for the week.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action against
the Defendant to recover straight time pay and overtime pay, as
well as liquidated damages for all of their hours worked over 40
per week, along with his attorneys' fees and costs incurred in
prosecuting the FLSA claims, and other relief as the Court deems
just and proper.
Kaschak Roofing, Inc. provides roofing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yingtao Ho, Esq.
THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
310 W. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 100MW
Milwaukee, WI 53203
Tel: (414) 271-4500
Fax: (414) 271-6308
E-mail: yh@previant.com
KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT: Brayman, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHEL BRAYMAN, DANA
McCARTHY, AND ADRIANA PONCE, Individually and on behalf of all
other Similarly situated individuals, v. KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT
SOLUTIONS INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
1:18-cv-00550-WJM-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying the proposed Rule 23 class.
The Plaintiff contends that KeyPoint maintained a common policy and
practice of forcing its investigator employees to work
off-the-clock across the United States, including in California.
This policy resulted from KeyPoint's routine over-assignment of
work and strict minimum performance expectations that were enforced
by KeyPoint's field managers, who constantly monitored work
performance and initiated the company's progressive disciplinary
policy when performance was below minimum expectations.
The Plaintiffs Adriana Ponce and Dana McCarthy seek to certify a
class of investigators in California for violations of California
state law.
Common factual questions predominate in their proposed class.
KeyPoint subjected all investigators in the putative Rule 23 class
to the same, uniform minimum performance expectations that resulted
in off-the-clock work. Plaintiffs consistently allege that KeyPoint
enforced its minimum performance expectations and that they
complained about these unrealistic expectations to their field
managers. Class-wide evidence consisting of Plaintiffs' testimony
about their unpaid work, data from KeyPoint's electronic systems,
field managers' communications enforcing strict limits on overtime
and on achieving at least minimum performance expectations, and
Plaintiffs' complaints to field managers and Human Resources, all
will be used to establish that KeyPoint violated California state
law. Therefore,
class-wide adjudication is appropriate, and the Court should
certify the Rule 23 California class.
On March 8, 2018, Plaintiff Brayman filed this FLSA collective
action against KeyPoint for overtime pay on her own behalf and
other similarly situated individuals.
On July 9, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their First Amended
Complaint, alleging violations of California state wage and hour
laws on behalf of a putative Rule 23 class.
On April 6, 2018, Plaintiff moved for conditional certification of
the FLSA collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
The Court partially granted the on November 1, 2018. On December
16, 2019, the Court defined the collective as:
"All persons who worked as, or who were hired to be, a Field
Investigator, Background Investigator, or in other position with
similar job duties, for Defendant KeyPoint Government Solutions,
Inc. at any time from April 6, 2015 to September 18, 2019."
KeyPoint provides security services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Aug. 12,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3D3jOu5
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
Caroline Elizabeth Bressman, Esq.
Reena I. Desai, Esq.
H. Clara Coleman, Esq.
Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
80 South 8th Street
IDS Center, Suite 4700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: 612-256-3264
Facsimile: 612-338-4878
E-mail: srey@nka.com
cbressman@nka.com
desai@nka.com
ccoleman@nka.com
dbrome@nka.com
- and -
Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
George E. Swegman, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
Baltimore, MD 21201
E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
gswegman@nicholllaw.com
KINDRED BIOSCIENCES: Wilson Suit Seeks to Enjoin Stockholder Vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KINDRED BIOSCIENCES, INC., LYNDON LIEN,
NANXI LIU, HERBERT D. MONTGOMERY, RAYMOND TOWNSEND, ERVIN
VESZPREMI, DENISE M. BEVERS, RICHARD CHIN, and JOSEPH S. MCCRACKEN,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06332 (N.D. Cal., August 17, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants authorized the issuance
of a false and misleading proxy statement with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) to recommend Kindred stockholders to
vote in favor of the proposed acquisition of Kindred Biosciences by
Elanco Animal Health Incorporated. The proxy statement allegedly
omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (i) Kindred's financial projections and the data and inputs
underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the
fairness opinion provided by the company's financial advisor
Barclays Capital Inc.; (ii) the background of the proposed
transaction; and (iii) company insiders' potential conflicts of
interest. Kindred's public stockholders, including the Plaintiff,
will be irreparably harmed because the proxy statement's material
misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a
sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the proposed
transaction. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on
the proposed transaction unless and until such Exchange Act
violations are cured, the suit says.
Kindred Biosciences, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
headquartered in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
9100 Wilshire Blvd. #725 E.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com
KIRKHAM SOLUTIONS: Gill Files Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Gill, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Kirkham Solutions Staffing,
Inc. and Michael Kirkham, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00220 (W.D.
N.C., August 12, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, attorney fees, costs and other relief for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina
Wage and Hour Act.
Kirkham Solutions Staffing, Inc. provides internet installation
services for customers in various states. Gill worked for Kirkham
from approximately April 6, 2021 to July 22, 2021 as a Field
Technician and worked in various states, including North Carolina.
He claims to be misclassified as an independent contractor, thus
denied overtime pay despite regularly working more than forty hours
in a workweek. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY, LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 925-5297
Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com
scott@bohrerbrady.com
- and -
Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP
2400 Freeman Mill Road, Ste. 200
Greensboro, NC 27406
Phone: (336) 333-9899
Fax: (336) 333-9894
Email: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com
KRYSIAK CONSTRUCTION: Zimnicki Sues Over Workers' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KAROL ZIMNICKI and DAWID ZIMNICKI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KRYSIAK CONSTRUCTION
CORP., BOGUSLAWA KRYSIAK, MAREK WUJCIK, and ARKADIUSZ MAKOWSKI,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-04634 (E.D.N.Y., August 17, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for breach of contract and
violations of Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law
by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and all other similarly
situated construction workers appropriate minimum wages and
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.
Plaintiffs Karol Zimnicki and Dawid Zimnicki worked for the
Defendants as construction workers and carpenters in New York from
January 2014 until March 2020 and from September 2018 until June
2019.
Krysiak Construction Corp. is a general contractor based in New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Darius A. Marzec, Esq.
MARZEC LAW FIRM, PC
776A Manhattan Avenue, Suite 104
Brooklyn, NY 11222
Telephone: (718) 609-0303
E-mail: dmarzec@marzeclaw.com
LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss AMCA-Related Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company's motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit
related to a data security incident involving Retrieval-Masters
Creditors Bureau, Inc. d/b/a American Medical Collection Agency
(AMCA) is pending.
The Company referred patient balances to Retrieval-Masters
Creditors Bureau, Inc. d/b/a American Medical Collection Agency
(AMCA) only when direct collection efforts were unsuccessful. The
Company's systems were not impacted by the AMCA Incident. Upon
learning of the AMCA Incident, the Company promptly stopped sending
new collection requests to AMCA and stopped AMCA from continuing to
work on any pending collection requests from the Company. AMCA
informed the Company that it appeared that an unauthorized user had
access to AMCA's system between August 1, 2018, and March 30, 2019,
and that AMCA could not rule out the possibility that personal
information on AMCA's system was at risk during that time period.
Information on AMCA's affected system from the Company may have
included name, address, and balance information for the patient and
person responsible for payment, along with the patient's phone
number, date of birth, referring physician, and date of service.
The Company was later informed by AMCA that health insurance=
information may have been included for some individuals, and
because some insurance carriers utilize the Social Security Number
as a subscriber identification number, the Social Security Number
for some individuals may also have been affected. No ordered tests,
laboratory test results, or diagnostic information from the Company
were in the AMCA affected system. The Company notified individuals
for whom it had a valid mailing address. For the individuals whose
Social Security Number was affected, the notice included an offer
to enroll in credit monitoring and identity protection services
that will be provided free of charge for 24 months.
Twenty-three putative class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company related to the AMCA Incident in various U.S. District
Courts.
Numerous similar lawsuits have been filed against other health care
providers who used AMCA.
These lawsuits have been consolidated into a multidistrict
litigation in the District of New Jersey.
On November 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class
Action Complaint in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey. On
January 22, 2020, the Company filed Motions to Dismiss all claims.
The consolidated Complaint generally alleges that the Company did
not adequately protect its patients' data and failed to timely
notify those patients of the AMCA Incident.
The Complaint asserts various causes of action, including but not
limited to negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, and the violation of state data protection statutes.
The Complaint seeks damages on behalf of a class of all affected
Company customers.
The Company will vigorously defend the multi-district litigation.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.
LABORATORY CORP: Consolidated Bouffard and Anderson Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company continues to defend the Bouffard and Anderson actions,
which have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina.
On March 10, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Victoria Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation
of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina.
The complaint alleges that the Company's patient list prices
unlawfully exceed the rates negotiated for the same services with
private and public health insurers in violation of various state
consumer protection laws.
The lawsuit also alleges breach of implied contract or
quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The lawsuit seeks
statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and
recovery of attorney's fees and costs.
In May 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Complaint and Strike Class Allegations; the Motion to Dismiss was
granted in March 2018 without prejudice.
On October 10, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit, Sheryl
Anderson, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina.
The complaint contained similar allegations and sought similar
relief to the Bouffard complaint, and added additional counts
regarding state consumer protection laws.
On August 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint,
which consolidated the Bouffard and Anderson actions.
On September 10, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Strike Class Allegations.
On August 16, 2019, the Court entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, and
denying the Motion to Strike the Class Allegations.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Bermejo Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled,
Jose Bermejo v. Laboratory Corporation of America.
On May 14, 2020, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Jose Bermejo v. Laboratory Corporation of America
(Bermejo I) filed in the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles Central District, alleging that certain non-exempt
California-based employees were not properly compensated for
driving time or properly paid wages upon termination of employment.
The Plaintiff asserts these actions violate various California
Labor Code provisions and Section 17200 of the Business and
Professional Code. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil
penalties, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.
On June 15, 2020, the lawsuit was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.
On June 16, 2020, the Company was served with a Private Attorney
General Act lawsuit by the same plaintiff in Jose Bermejo v.
Laboratory Corporation of America (Bermejo II), filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Central
District, alleging that certain Company practices violated
California Labor Code penalty provisions related to unpaid and
minimum wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid meal and rest break
premiums, untimely payment of wages following separation of
employment, failure to maintain accurate pay records, and
non-reimbursement of business expenses.
The second lawsuit seeks to recover civil penalties and recovery of
attorney's fees and costs.
On October 28, 2020, the court issued an order staying proceedings
in Bermejo II pending resolution of Bermejo I. The second lawsuit
seeks to recover civil penalties and recovery of attorney's fees
and costs.
The Company will vigorously defend both lawsuits.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.
LABORATORY CORP: Davis Putative Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled,
Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al.
On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America,
et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida.
The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act by billing patients who were
collecting benefits under the Workers' Compensation Statutes.
The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory
damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses.
In April 2017, the Circuit Court granted the Company's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings.
The Plaintiff appealed the Circuit Court's ruling to the Florida
Second District Court of Appeal.
On October 16, 2019, the Court of Appeal reversed the Circuit
Court's dismissal, but certified a controlling issue of Florida law
to the Florida Supreme Court.
On February 17, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court accepted
jurisdiction of the lawsuit.
The Court held oral arguments on December 9, 2020.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.
LABORATORY CORP: Foy Putative Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled,
Foy v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings d/b/a Labcorp
Diagnostics.
On March 1, 2021, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Foy v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings
d/b/a Labcorp Diagnostics, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina, alleging claims for failure to
properly pay service representatives employed outside of California
and New York for all hours worked and overtime compensation under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, equitable
and injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.
LABORATORY CORP: Multiple Motions in Davis Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
plaintiffs and the company's motions for summary judgment and the
plaintiffs motion for class certification, are pending.
On January 31, 2020, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Luke Davis and Julian Vargas, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.
The lawsuit alleges that visually impaired patients are unable to
use the Company's touchscreen kiosks at Company patient service
centers in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
similar California statutes.
The lawsuit seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, and
attorney's fees and costs.
On March 20, 2020, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Complaint and to Strike Class Allegations.
In August 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint.
On April 26, 2021, the Plaintiffs and the Company each filed
Motions for Summary Judgment and the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Class Certification.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.
LABORATORY CORP: Sequenom Shareholders' Suit Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
putative class action suit entitled, In re Sequenom, Inc.
Shareholder Litig., Lead Case No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, remains
stayed.
Prior to the Company's acquisition of Sequenom, Inc. between August
15, 2016 and August 24, 2016, six putative class-action lawsuits
were filed on behalf of purported Sequenom stockholders (captioned
Malkoff v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02054- JAH-BLM, Gupta
v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02084-JAH-KSC, Fruchter v.
Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02101- WQH-KSC, Asiatrade
Development Ltd. v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No.
16-cv-02113-AJB-JMA, Nunes v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No.
16-cv-02128-AJB-MDD, and Cusumano v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No.
16-cv-02134-LAB-JMA) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California challenging the acquisition transaction.
The complaints asserted claims against Sequenom and members of its
board of directors (the Individual Defendants). The Nunes action
also named the Company and Savoy Acquisition Corp. (Savoy), a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, as defendants. The
complaints alleged that the defendants violated Sections 14(e),
14(d)(4) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing
to disclose certain allegedly material information.
In addition, the complaints in the Malkoff action, the Asiatrade
action, and the Cusumano action alleged that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Sequenom
shareholders. The actions sought, among other things, injunctive
relief enjoining the merger. On August 30, 2016, the parties
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in each of the
above-referenced actions.
On September 6, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating for
all pre-trial purposes the six individual actions described above
under the caption In re Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder Litig., Lead
Case No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, and designating the complaint from
the Malkoff action as the operative complaint for the consolidated
action.
On November 11, 2016, two competing motions were filed by two
separate stockholders (James Reilly and Shikha Gupta) seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff under the terms of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On June 7, 2017, the
Court entered an order declaring Mr. Reilly as the lead plaintiff
and approving Mr. Reilly's selection of lead counsel.
The parties agree that the MOU has been terminated. The Plaintiffs
filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on July 24,
2017, and the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which remains
pending.
On March 13, 2019, the Court stayed the action in its entirety
pending the U.S. Supreme Court's anticipated decision in Emulex
Corp. v. Varjabedian.
On April 23, 2019, however, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the
writ of certiorari in Emulex as improvidently granted.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.
LABORATORY CORP: Williams Putative Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled,
Williams v. Labcorp Employer Services, Inc. et al.
On October 5, 2020, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Williams v. LabCorp Employer Services, Inc. et al,
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
alleging that certain non-exempt California-based employees were
not properly compensated for work and overtime hours, not properly
paid meal and rest break premiums, not reimbursed for certain
business-related expenses, not properly paid for driving or wait
times, and received inaccurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff also asserts claims for unfair competition under
Section 17200 of the Business and Professional Code.
On November 4, 2020, the lawsuit was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.
The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, civil
penalties, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.
On June 24, 2021, the District Court remanded the case to the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on the grounds
that potential damages did not meet the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), jurisdictional threshold.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid for Leave to Amend Glover Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that plaintiff's motion
for leave to amend the complaint Glover v. Connecticut General Life
Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
remains pending.
Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, is a
putative class action that was served on The Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company ("LNL") on June 8, 2016.
Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who
alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance
than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all
universal life and variable universal life policyholders who owned
policies containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions
that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages
on behalf of all such policyholders.
On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint in
its entirety.
In response, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the
complaint, which the company had opposed.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Hanks Class Suit vs Subsidiary Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the Company's
subsidiary, The Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New York
("LLANY"), continues to be actively engaged in the vigorous defense
of the class action suit styled, Hanks v. The Lincoln Life and
Annuity Company of New York and Voya Retirement Insurance and
Annuity Company.
Hanks v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York and Voya
Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, No.
1:16-cv-6399, is a putative class action that was served on LLANY
on August 12, 2016.
Plaintiff owns a universal life policy originally issued by Aetna
(now Voya) and alleges that (i) Voya breached the terms of the
policy when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates on
Plaintiff's policy; and (ii) LLANY, as reinsurer and administrator
of Plaintiff's policy, engaged in wrongful conduct related to the
cost of insurance increase and was unjustly enriched as a result.
Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of Aetna life insurance
policies that were subject to non-guaranteed cost of insurance rate
increases in 2016 and seeks damages on their behalf.
On March 13, 2019, the court issued an order granting plaintiff's
motion for class certification for the breach of contract claim and
denying such motion with respect to the unjust enrichment claim
against LLANY, and, on September 12, 2019, the court issued an
order approving the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal with
respect to the unjust enrichment claim and dismissed LLANY as a
defendant in the case.
In light of LLANY's role as reinsurer and administrator under the
1998 coinsurance agreement with Aetna (now Voya), and of the
parties' rights and obligations thereunder, LLANY continues to be
actively engaged in the defense of this case.
On September 30, 2020, the court denied plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment and granted in part Voya's motion for summary
judgment.
Lincoln said, "The court has not yet set a trial date, and we
continue to vigorously defend this action."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Iwanski Class Suit vs. First-Penn Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that First Penn-Pacific
Life Insurance Company ("FPP") continues to defend a putative class
action suit entitled, Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance
Company ("FPP"), No. 2:18-cv-01573.
Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company, No.
2:18-cv-01573 filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania is a putative class action that was filed
on April 13, 2018.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant FPP breached the terms of his life
insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance
charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies.
Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance
policies issued by FPP containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance
provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and
seeks damages on their behalf.
Breach of contract is the only cause of action asserted.
Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Nitkewicz Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the plaintiff in
Andrew Nitkewicz v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York
filed a notice of appeal on the grant of dismissal by the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Andrew Nitkewicz v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, No. 1:20-cv-06805, is a putative class action that was filed
on August 24, 2020.
Plaintiff Andrew Nitkewicz, as trustee of the Joan C. Lupe Trust,
seeks to represent all current and former owners of universal life
(including variable universal life) policies who own or owned
policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest that were
in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and for which
planned annual, semi-annual, or quarterly premiums were paid for
any period beyond the end of the policy month of the insured's
death.
Plaintiff alleges LLANY failed to refund unearned premium in
violation of New York Insurance Law Section 3203(a)(2) in
connection with the payment of death benefit claims for certain
insurance policies.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest on
behalf of the various classes and sub-class.
On July 2, 2021, the court granted, with prejudice, LLANY's
November 2020 motion to dismiss this matter.
On July 28, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with respect
to this ruling.
Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Defends COI Litigation in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re: Lincoln
National COI Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master
File No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter
related to multiple putative class action filings that were
consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017.
In addition to consolidating a number of existing matters, the
order also covers any future cases filed in the same district
related to the same subject matter.
Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued
by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL).
Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of
policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of
insurance rates beginning in 2016.
Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policy owners and seek
damages on their behalf.
Lincoln said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.
LMD & ASSC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Hernandez-Adorno Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David C. Norton of the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina, Charleston Division, grants the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the case, EFRAIN HERNANDEZ-ADORNO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LMD &
ASSC., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-1519-DCN (D.S.C.).
In September 2017, Hurricanes Irma and Maria swept through the
northeast Caribbean, bringing devastation to its islands, including
the United States territory of Puerto Rico. As part of its relief
efforts, the United States contracted Louis Berger, a New Jersey
architecture and engineering firm, to perform repairs and rebuild
infrastructure in Puerto Rico shortly after the storms. Louis
Berger subcontracted many of its obligations under those contracts
to various subcontractors, including the Defendant in the action,
LMD. In turn, those subcontractors hired workers in Puerto Rico to
perform the contracted services.
On Dec. 14, 2018, one of those workers, Ivan Ojeda, filed an action
in the District of New Jersey against Louis Berger and two of its
subcontractors, Kennett Consulting and Kallberg Industries -- Ojeda
v. Louis Berger Group, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-17233-KM-JBC (D.N.J. 2018)
("New Jersey Action"). Ojeda filed the New Jersey Action as a
collective and class action on behalf of similarly situated
workers, asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Section 201, et seq. ("FLSA"), and various Puerto Rico
worker protection laws under Title 29 of the Puerto Rico Code
Annotated, 29 L.P.R.A. Section 1, et seq. Ojeda's complaint
specifically alleges that the Defendants engaged in a slew of
illegal pay practices, including improperly characterizing workers
as independent contractors, failing to properly compensate for
overtime work, and unlawfully deducting wages, among others.
On March 19, 2019, Ojeda filed an amended complaint, joining a
second named plaintiff and several additional defendants, including
LMD. Shortly thereafter, four of the subcontractor defendants,
including LMD, filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Before resolving the motions, the district court
ordered the relevant parties to engage in jurisdictional
discovery.
During that period, on June 11, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint, adding additional named plaintiffs, such that
the lawsuit included at least one named plaintiff who performed
work for each defendant. Plaintiff Hernandez-Adorno was joined as
the plaintiff who performed work for LMD. On March 11, 2021, the
New Jersey district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction
over LMD, Ojeda v. Louis Berger Group, 2021 WL 941875 at *15
(D.N.J. March 21, 2021), and subsequently transferred the claims
against LMD, a South Carolina limited liability company with its
principal place of business in South Carolina, to the Court, No.
2:18-cv-17233 at ECF No. 339.
Accordingly, on May 19, 2021, Hernandez-Adorno -- pursuant to the
New Jersey Action's transfer order -- filed with the Court the
instant collective and class action against LMD on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated. Like the New Jersey
Action that preceded it, the action asserts claims under the FLSA
and Title 29 of the Puerto Rico Code Annotated. With respect to the
Puerto Rico law claims, plaintiffs specifically assert that LMD:
(1) failed to properly pay overtime wages in violation of 29
L.P.R.A. Section 271; (2) made unlawful wage deductions in
violation of Section 171; (3) failed to make timely wage payments
in violation of Section 173; (4) wrongfully discharged employees in
violation of Section 185; (5) failed to pay minimum wage in
violation of Section 250; (6) failed to allot meal hours in
violation of Section 283; and (7) failed to pay Christmas bonuses
in violation of Section 501.
On June 9, 2021, LMD filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim, arguing that the Plaintiffs' Puerto Rico law claims are
barred by the applicable statute of limitations. On June 30, 2021,
Hernandez-Adorno responded to the motion. And on July 7, 2021, LMD
replied. The Court held a hearing on the motion on July 27, 2021.
Discussion
In its motion, LMD argues that the Plaintiffs' Puerto Rico law
claims "are time-barred as they are subject to a one-year statute
of limitations pursuant to] 29 L.P.R.A. Section 250j." The
Plaintiffs submit several arguments against dismissal.
Before delving into the substance of those claims, however, Judge
Norton clarifies one initial matter raised by the parties' papers.
In its motion to dismiss, LMD seeks dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
Puerto Rico law claims and supplies detailed and well-reasoned
arguments in support. Muddying the waters, though, LMD states in a
summary of its argument, "Additionally, the claims under FLSA set
forth by Edgardo Soto Infante ("Soto") and Alfonso Molina Mannero
("Molina") -- the other two individuals mentioned in the Complaint
-- are time-barred because they have never filed opt-in notices."
Despite this strong stance, LMD offers no accompanying law or set
of facts which might support the Court's dismissal of Soto and
Molina's FLSA claims and fails to otherwise mention that position
at all in subsequent filings with the court. LMD concludes its
motion by seeking dismissal of "all Puerto Rico law claims against
LMD," without any mention of the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims. In
response to questions from the Court at the hearing, LMD confirmed
that its motion only seeks dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Puerto Rico
law claims, not their FLSA claims. Thus, Judge Norton considers
only those claims in resolving LMD's motion to dismiss.
A. Untimeliness
LMD's motion asserts that the Plaintiffs' Puerto Rico law claims
are time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
Disagreeing on several fronts, the Plaintiffs first respond to
LMD's statute-of-limitations argument with an untimeliness argument
of their own, contending that LMD cannot assert a
statute-of-limitations defense in a successive motion to dismiss
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. They explain that because LMD filed a
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in the New
Jersey Action, it is procedurally barred from filing a successive
motion to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds.
Judge Norton explains that courts in the district have opted for a
similar resolution, construing successive Rule 12(b)(6) motions to
dismiss as Rule 12(c) motions for judgment on the pleadings. Doing
the same in the case makes good sense. For one, he says, LMD could
have brought its statute-of-limitations defense in a Rule 12(c)
motion instead of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion because the pleadings in
the case are now closed. If it had, only the motion's title would
be different. Further, all the facts that the Court needs to
resolve LMD's defense are currently before it and undisputed.
Declining to resolve LMD's statute-of-limitations defense now would
delay its resolution without good reason, wasting the Court's, as
well as the parties', time and resources.
Moreover, at the hearing on the motion, the Plaintiffs' counsel
conceded that the Court had the authority to construe LMD's motion
as a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Finding that the most
sensible approach, the Court construes LMD's Rule 12(b)(6) motion
to dismiss as a Rule 12(c) motion for partial judgment on the
pleadings and resolves LMD's statute-of-limitations defense here
and now.
B. The Applicable Statute of Limitations
Turning from procedure to substance, the Court's first task is to
determine the applicable statute of limitations -- an issue the
parties hotly dispute. Each of the Plaintiffs' Puerto Rico law
claims arises from laws within Title 29 of the Puerto Rico Code
Annotated. LMD contends that 29 L.R.P.A. Section 250j applies to
all wage claims arising under Title 29 and therefore to each of
plaintiffs' Puerto Rico law claims. Additionally, LMD points out,
29 L.R.P.A. Section 185l specifically provides that claims for
unlawful discharge "shall prescribe after one year has elapsed from
the effective date of the discharge."
In response, the Plaintiffs first contend that Section 250j does
not provide the appliable statute of limitations for all claims
arising from Title 29 and therefore does not bar most of their
Puerto Rico law claims.
Judge Norton holds that whether by explicit legislative direction
or by analogy, Puerto Rico law compels the Court to apply a
one-year limitations period to all the Plaintiffs' Puerto Rico law
claims. He agrees with LMD that a one-year limitations period in
Section 250j applies to all wage claims under Title 29 for two
reasons. First, the ambiguity of Section 250j's language is
resolved by the overwhelming and explicit evidence of the
Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico's intent. Second, the evidence
demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the Legislative
Assembly of Puerto Rico intended the limitations period codified in
Section 250j to cover all wage claims arising from Title 29. Third,
even if the language of Section 250j does not explicitly extend its
one-year limitations period to all wage claims arising under Title
29, that limitations period would nonetheless govern the
Plaintiffs' wage claims by analogy.
C. Class Action Tolling
Next, the Plaintiffs argue that even if a one-year limitations
period were to govern their Puerto Rico law claims, the claims are
nevertheless timely because the limitations period has been tolled
since Dec. 14, 2018, the date on which Ojeda filed the initial
complaint against Louis Berger in the New Jersey Action.
Judge Norton finds that while the filing of the New Jersey Action
operated to toll the claims initially alleged against the
Defendants therein, the Plaintiffs did not file the instant claims
against LMD until much later, after the limitations period expired.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs' argument is inapposite. He explains that
a defendant's "right to be free of stale claims," on which the
Supreme Court relied in American Pipe, would be entirely undermined
if the tolling mechanism granted class-action plaintiffs carte
blanche to untimely join additional defendants after the expiration
of the appliable limitations period. Obviously, a defendant added
to a lawsuit after the expiration of the limitations period would
lack timely notice of the "substantive claims brought against him."
In short, American Pipe cannot save the Plaintiffs' untimely claims
against LMD.
D. Relation Back
In one final attempt to avoid dismissal of their Puerto Rico law
claims, the Plaintiffs contend that those claims "relate back to
the original complaint" filed in the New Jersey Action, pursuant to
Puerto Rico's doctrine of solidarity. According to the Plaintiffs'
complaint, Louis Berger, the original defendant, is a general
contractor who engaged LMD to be its subcontractor.
At this stage, Judge Norton cannot discern the nature of the
relationship between Louis Berger and LMD, meaning that it is
unclear whether Louis Berger could be held vicariously liable for
LMD's torts. But the Judge does not need to determine the exact
nature of the relationship to find that perfect solidarity does not
exist in the case. A plaintiff's claim against one defendant does
not toll the statute of limitations with respect to co-tortfeasor
where the original claim is asserted against the vicariously liable
party. Just as a claim originally brought against a hospital does
not toll the limitations period for a claim against the
hospital-employed doctor, Ojeda's filing of the New Jersey Action
against Louis Berger does not toll the limitations period with
respect to claims against LMD, Louis Berger's subcontractor.
Therefore, even assuming that Louis Berger could be held
vicariously liable for LMD's torts, the original claim against
Louis Berger did not toll the limitations period with respect to
the instant claims against LMD. Thus, Louis Berger and LMD are not
in perfect solidarity, meaning that Puerto Rico law did not toll
the Plaintiffs' claims. The Plaintiffs' Puerto Rico law claims,
then, are left unredeemed by any tolling doctrine and must be
dismissed as untimely pursuant to the applicable one-year
limitations period. The Plaintiffs' FLSA claims, on the other hand,
survive.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Norton construes LMD's motion as a
motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and grants the
motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/edd2xyrs from Leagle.com.
LOWE'S HOME: Conditional Class Certification Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE BARTHOLOMEW and
MICHAEL SHERRY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-00695-JLB-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge John L.
Badalamenti enters an order granting in part and denying in part
the Plaintiffs' Motion for conditional class certification and
motion to facilitate notice.
As to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claims set
forth in Count I of the Amended Complaint, this action is
conditionally certified to proceed as a collective action under 29
U.S.C. section 216(b). The parties may file supplemental briefing,
including a proposal for the contents of the notice and how the
putative class members will be contacted, within twenty days of
this order. Any briefing shall not exceed seven pages, excluding
the certificate of service and signature page. The request for
class certification as to Counts II and III is denied says Judge
Badalamenti.
This is an employment action. the Plaintiffs are both sixty-two
years old and have worked for Lowe's in hourly positions as sales
associates. In addition to their hourly pay, they were paid
commissions on certain sales based on the "spiff" received from the
manufacturer.
On February 11, 2012, Lowe's replaced this commission income with
an adjustment in pay, known as an "allowance," based on an
employee's prior commission income. Lowe's told Plaintiffs they
would be entitled to the allowance if they remained hourly
employees at a Lowe's store.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kbuGO2 at no extra charge.[CC]
LOWRY FARMS: H-2A Temporary Foreign Workers Win Class Status
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNABE ANTONIO BENITO and
JESUS JIMENEZ MARTINEZ, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated, v. LOWRY FARMS, INC. and MICHAEL CLAYTON LOWRY
aka CLAY LOWRY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01039-SOH (W.D. Ark.), the Hon.
Judge Susan O. Hickey enters an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion for certification of Rule 23 class action.
The following class is certified:
"All individuals admitted as H-2A temporary foreign workers
who were employed by Defendants for work in its sugarcane
planting operations in 2016, 2017, 2018, and/or 2019."
The Court said, "a class action is the appropriate and superior
method for resolving this controversy. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs
have met all requirements for class certification under Rule
23(b)(3)."
This lawsuit was filed by two agricultural workers who entered the
United States under the H-2A temporary foreign worker program as
"guest workers" for Defendants in Louisiana between 2016 and 2019.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to pay them, and other
proposed class members, in accordance with their employment
contracts. The H-2A visa program allows employers in the United
States to hire foreign "guest workers" on temporary visas only if
there are insufficient U.S. workers available to perform the job(s)
and if hiring the H-2A workers does not adversely affect the wages
or working conditions of similarly situated U.S. workers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3miaRqT at no extra charge.[CC]
LUJAN GRISHAM: Valdez Files Suit in D. New Mexico
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lujan Grisham, et al.
The case is styled as Talisha Valdez, Jennifer Blackford, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. Michelle Lujan
Grisham, David Scrase, Officially and Individually, Acting under
the Color of Law, Case No. 1:21-cv-00783-MV-JHR (D.N.M., Aug. 19,
2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.
Michelle Lynn Lujan Grisham --
https://www.governor.state.nm.us/our-leadership/governor/ -- is an
American lawyer and politician serving as the 32nd governor of New
Mexico since 2019.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jared Robert Vander Dussen, Esq.
A. Blair Dunn, Esq.
WESTERN AGRICULTURE, RESOURCE AND BUSINESS ADVOCATED,
LLP
400 Gold Ave SW, Ste. 1000
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Phone: (505) 750-3060
Fax: (505) 226-8500
Email: warba.llp.jared@gmail.com
abdunn@ablairdunn-esq.com
LYFT INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Lyft, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend two
consolidated putative class action suits related to its Initial
Public Offering (IPO) Registration Statement.
Beginning in April 2019, multiple putative class actions and
derivative actions have been filed in state and federal courts
against the Company, its directors, certain of its officers, and
certain of the underwriters named in the IPO Registration Statement
alleging violation of securities laws, breach of fiduciary duties,
and other causes of action in connection with the IPO.
The putative class actions have been consolidated into two putative
class actions, one in California state court and the other in
federal court. The derivative actions have also been consolidated
into one action in federal court in California.
On July 1, 2020, the California state court sustained in part and
overruled in part the Company's demurrer to the consolidated
complaint. The Company filed its answer to this consolidated
complaint on August 3, 2020.
On February 26, 2021, the California state court struck additional
allegations from the consolidated complaint and granted plaintiffs
leave to amend, and plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March
17, 2021.
The Company filed its demurrer and motion to strike the amended
claim on April 13, 2021, and on July 16, 2021, the California state
court overruled the demurrer but struck additional allegations from
the consolidated complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to amend.
The state court plaintiffs filed their renewed motion to certify a
class action on June 24, 2021, and the Company's opposition brief
is due August 12, 2021.
In the California federal court putative class action, on May 14,
2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint and on September 8, 2020, the federal court granted in
part and denied in part that motion.
The Company filed its answer to this consolidated complaint on
October 2, 2020, and the parties are litigating the plaintiff's
motion to certify a class action.
In the consolidated derivative action, at the parties' joint
request, the California federal court stayed the case on February
17, 2021.
The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against them.
The Company's chances of success on the merits are still uncertain
and any possible loss or range of loss cannot be reasonably
estimated.
Lyft, Inc. provides online ridesharing services. The Company offers
ride booking, payment processing, and car transportation services.
Lyft serves customers in the United States. The company is based in
San Francisco California.
LYFT INC: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Haider Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Bigu Haider, et al., Plaintiffs v. Lyft, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-2997 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Alison J.
Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York grants Lyft's motion to compel arbitration under state law and
stays the case pending the outcome of arbitration.
Lyft operates a mobile-based ridesharing platform that matches
riders with drivers for personal transportation. To use Lyft's
mobile phone application, the drivers in this case agreed to Lyft's
terms of service. It updates those terms regularly. Lyft's terms of
service have long included an arbitration provision.
The revised version of the arbitration provision introduced in
Lyft's December 2020 terms of service states that Delaware law will
govern the arbitration provision in the event the FAA is found
inapplicable. Lyft's terms of service allow drivers to opt out of
the arbitration provision if they do so within the thirty-day
period after executing the agreement.
Lyft first published its December 2020 terms of service on its
website around December 9 and emailed some of its drivers a message
that its terms of service had changed. The two drivers in the case,
Bigu Haider and Mohammad Islam, did not receive such an email.
On Dec. 13, 2020, Islam logged onto the Lyft app and gave a ride to
a passenger. Islam was not presented with the new Lyft terms of
service in the app and did not have to click "I agree" at that
time, because Lyft did not begin presenting registered Lyft users
with the updated terms of service in the app until early January.
Haider does not claim to have used the Lyft app between December 9
and when Lyft began presenting drivers with the new terms of
service in the app in early January. Islam and Haider each sent an
email to Lyft expressing their intention to opt out of the
revisions to the arbitration provision on Jan. 8, 2021.
Islam and Haider were presented with the new terms of service in
the Lyft app later in January. Islam agreed to the new terms of
service through the Lyft app on Jan. 14, 2021, and Haider agreed to
the new terms of service through the Lyft app on Jan. 26, 2021.
Neither driver sent an opt-out email to Lyft after agreeing to the
terms of service through the Lyft app.
Earlier this year, the Court held that Lyft rideshare divers were
exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act under the statutory
exemption for transportation workers. It directed the parties to
file supplemental briefing addressing whether the claims in the
case were arbitrable under state law. Lyft notes in its
supplemental briefing that the drivers agreed to revised terms of
service after the outset of the litigation stating that Delaware
law would govern the parties' arbitration agreement in the event
the Federal Arbitration Act did not apply. The drivers do not
dispute that their claims are arbitrable under Delaware law, but
contend that the Court should not enforce that choice-of-law
provision.
Discussion
The case turns on whether Lyft's December 2020 terms of service
govern the drivers' claims. The drivers do not dispute that the
arbitration provision in Lyft's December 2020 terms of service
requires the application of Delaware law if, as the Court has held,
the Federal Arbitration Act does not apply. They do not dispute
that the arbitration provision is enforceable under Delaware law.
And they do not dispute that they agreed to the December 2020 terms
of service through the Lyft app in January 2021. The drivers
instead rely on two arguments -- first, that the December 2020
terms of service are unenforceable because Lyft introduced them
after the outset of the litigation; second, that they each opted
out of the revisions to the arbitration provision.
The Court concludes that neither argument has merit. She also
concludes that, even if the pre-December 2020 terms of service
applied, Islam would be collaterally estopped for contesting the
arbitrability of his claims under state law.
A. The December 2020 terms of service are enforceable
Neither Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d) nor the ethical
obligation of attorneys to refrain from communication with
represented parties bar enforcement of the December 2020 terms of
service. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d) grants district
courts the discretion to restrict communications between parties
and absent class members in class action litigation. However, an
order restricting class communications must rest on specific
findings of need.
Courts must draw such orders narrowly to limit as little speech as
possible while protecting absent class members from improper
pressure. In Rossini v. Ogilvy & Mather, Inc., 798 F.2d 590, 602
(2d Cir. 1986), "defendants and their counsel generally may
communicate with potential class members in the ordinary course of
business" provided that their communications are not false,
misleading, or intimidating. Based on this principle, a handful of
district courts have forbidden the enforcement of arbitration
agreements proposed to class members while a class action was
pending.
The drivers contend that because Lyft revised its terms of service
during the litigation, the Court must set the new terms of service
aside.
Judge Nathan concludes that neither Rule 23(d) nor the New York
Rules of Professional Conduct bar enforcement of the December 2020
terms of service. For the same reasons, she finds that the terms
are not procedurally unconscionable. The December 2020 terms of
service are enforceable against those who agreed to them.
B. The drivers did not opt out of the December 2020 terms of
service
The December 2020 terms of service allowed drivers to opt out by
sending an email to Lyft "within 30 days of the date this Agreement
is executed by you." The language of the opt-out provision is clear
and specific. The Court agrees with others who have considered
similar agreements and concluded that "a driver who accepts the
terms of the offer, and enters into an agreement on the offered
terms, can only then opt out by following the process outlined in
that agreement." Thus, a driver may opt out of the arbitration
provision only by strict compliance with the agreement's opt-out
procedures.
Judge Nathan holds that because the drivers agreed to the December
2020 terms of service and did not effectively opt out of its
arbitration provision, that provision governs their claims. The
drivers do not contest that the arbitration provision in the
December 2020 terms of service mandates the application of Delaware
law and that Delaware law requires that they arbitrate their
claims. The Judge must therefore compel arbitration of the drivers'
claims.
C. Islam is collaterally stopped from relitigating the
arbitrability of his claims under state law
Judge Nathan further finds that Islam's claims would be subject to
arbitration under state law even if the December 2020 terms of
service did not apply. Islam litigated precisely this issue in
Islam v. Lyft, Inc., No. 20-cv-3004 (RA), 2021 WL 871417 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 9, 2021), and Judge Abrams found that -- in the absence of a
choice-of-law provision in the terms of service -- his claims were
subject to arbitration under New York law. He is collaterally
estopped from relitigating this issue now.
The arbitrability of Islam's claims under state law in Islam
presented identical issues to those the Court would face if the
December 2020 terms of service did not apply. Both cases involved
the same contract with Lyft. In both cases, Islam argued that the
contract's choice-of-law provision barred the application of any
state's law to the arbitration provision if the FAA did not apply.
See id. at *14. And both cases presented mixed factual and legal
questions as to the proper application of the contract and New
York's choice-of-law rules. Islam vigorously litigated these issues
and lost on the merits. Judge Nathan concludes that he is therefore
collaterally estopped from relitigating them.
Conclusion
Judge Nathan finds that the drivers agreed that Delaware law would
govern the arbitrability of their claims and, because they do not
contest that their claims are arbitrable under Delaware law, that
Lyft is entitled to compel arbitration. She also finds that Islam
is collaterally estopped from relitigating the arbitrability of his
claims under Lyft's earlier terms of service.
The Judge, thus, grants Lyft's motion to compel arbitration under
state law and stays the case pending the outcome of arbitration. In
light of this holding, the Judge does not reach Lyft's renewed
arguments under the FAA. The Order resolves Docket Number 67.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 6, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8hwy8jv from Leagle.com.
LYFT INC: Ruling on ILRC Suit Expected Before Year Ends
-------------------------------------------------------
Lyft, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that a bench trial in Independent Living
Resource Center San Francisco ("ILRC") v. Lyft, Inc. was held in
June 2021 and a decision is expected prior to the end of the year.
The Company is involved in a number of class actions alleging
violations of consumer protection laws such as the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, or TCPA, as well as violations of
other laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the ADA,
seeking injunctive or other relief.
The Company is currently defending two matters alleging ADA
violations with respect to Lyft's wheelchair accessible vehicle
offerings, including ILRC v. Lyft, Inc. in the Northern District of
California, which addresses WAV service in three Bay Area counties,
and Lowell v. Lyft, Inc. in the Southern District of New York,
which seeks to certify a nationwide class.
In ILRC, a bench trial was held in June 2021 and a decision is
expected prior to the end of the year.
The Company disputes any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
continue to defend itself vigorously in these matters.
The Company's chances of success on the merits are still uncertain
and any possible loss or range of loss cannot be reasonably
estimated.
Lyft, Inc. provides online ridesharing services. The Company offers
ride booking, payment processing, and car transportation services.
Lyft serves customers in the United States. The company is based in
San Francisco California.
MAIN STREET: Dockery Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Illegal Kickbacks
------------------------------------------------------------------
KEOSHA DOCKERY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAIN STREET 62 LLC dba SUGAR SHACK, JASON
GEILING, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
6:21-cv-01221-AA (D. Ore., August 17, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act including failure to pay minimum wages, illegal kickbacks,
unlawful taking of tips, and forced tip sharing.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an exotic dancer at
Sugar Shack located at 3803 Commercial Street SE, Salem, Oregon
from 2018 to October 2020.
Main Street 62 LLC is an operator of an adult entertainment
facility under the name Sugar Shack located at 3803 Commercial
Street SE, Salem, Oregon. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
S. Amanda Marshall, Esq.
S. AMANDA MARSHALL LLC
4545 SW Angel Avenue, Suite 104
Beaverton, OR 97005
Telephone: (503) 472-7190
E-mail: amanda@maclaw.com
- and –
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 507-7924
Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
MANNATECH INCORPORATED: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mannatech,
Incorporated. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Mannatech,
Incorporated, Case No. 1:21-cv-06972 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mannatech -- https://www.mannatech.com/ -- is a publicly traded,
multinational multi-level marketing firm that sells dietary
supplements and personal care products.[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
MANNY'S MEXICAN: Lozoya Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
BLANCA LOZOYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MANNY'S MEXICAN SEAFOOD GRILL & CANTINA,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-02653 (S.D. Tex., August 16, 2021)
is a collective and class action complaint against the Defendant
seeking damages for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant a non-exempt and
hourly-paid cleaner/dishwasher and as a busser at the Defendant's
restaurant from about March 2017 through on or about June 5, 2021.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked more
than 40 hours per week. However, the Defendant did not compensate
her for the overtime she performed work for the Defendant at the
rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. In addition, the
Defendant failed to maintain and preserve payroll records which
accurately show the total hours worked by the Plaintiff on a daily
and weekly basis, the suit says.
Manny's Mexican Seafood Grill & Cantina, LLC operates a restaurant.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Taneska Jones, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 621-2277
Fax: (713) 621-0993
E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
marbuckle@eeoc.net
tjones@eeoc.net
MARRIOTT INT'L: Court Denies Helman's Bid to Dismiss Counterclaims
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALAN HELMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. MARRIOTT INTL.,
INC., et al., Defendants, Civil No. 2019-36 (D.V.I.), Magistrate
Judge Ruth Miller of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John, denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss the Marriott Defendants'
Counterclaims for Indemnification and Unjust Enrichment.
Marriott endeavors to bring two claims against the Helman parties:
Contractual Indemnification (Count I) and Unjust Enrichment and
Set-Off Demand (Count II). It bases the first claim on an indemnity
provision in the Management Agreement dated May 22, 2002 between RC
Hotels VI and the Great Bay Condominium Owners' Association, Inc.
("GBCOA"). Marriott's second claim arises from benefits the Helman
parties allegedly received by virtue of the Settlement Agreement
and Limited Release dated Dec. 2, 2013 between GBCOA and RC St.
Thomas LLC, and an earlier 2009 settlement agreement.
Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss. The
Defendants filed a response, to which the Plaintiffs.
Discussion
A. Contractual Indemnification
To state a claim for indemnification, the Plaintiff must allege
that (1) there exists an indemnification agreement -- a contract
with specific terms that clearly and unambiguously evidence the
parties' intent that one party indemnify the other party; (2) the
indemnification agreement creates a duty; (3) there was a breach of
that duty; and (4) damages resulted from that breach.
The Helman parties argue that Marriott's indemnification claim
"fails" due to the plain language of the Management Agreement's
indemnity clause. Specifically, they contend that (1) the
"Management Agreement expressly excludes indemnification for
willful misconduct like the wrongdoing at issue in this case;" (2)
the "indemnity clause does not apply to first-party claims;" and
(3) the "Plaintiffs' claims are not based on conduct governed by
the Management Agreement."
Judge Miller opines that Marriott has adequately pled a claim for
indemnification. Marriott has satisfied Rule 8(a)(2). Marriott
identified the existence of an indemnification provision within the
Management Agreement that imposes a duty upon the GBCOA and its
members to indemnify the Management Company and its affiliates from
any liability arising out of the Management Company's actions under
the contract. Further, Marriott alleged that in the event it is
found liable to the Plaintiffs for various failures under the
Management Agreement, the Helman parties are obliged to indemnify
Marriott.
The Helman parties raise three issues with the indemnification
claim. Their first argument -- that the indemnification provision
in the Management Agreement does not cover willful misconduct -- is
beside the point. As an initial matter, Judge Miller holds that the
Plaintiffs characterize the Defendants' behavior as "willful
conduct," does not make it so. Whether the Defendants' actions in
fact constitute gross negligence or willful misconduct has not yet
been determined.
The Helman parties' second argument -- that Marriott cannot seek
indemnification from them because the Management Agreement's
indemnification provision only applies to third-party claims -- is
also premature. In Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Dammann & Co., Inc.,
on which the Helman parties rely, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit did not rule out the possibility that first-party
indemnification claims were viable under New Jersey law. Moreover,
although the Travelers Court concluded that the first-party
indemnification claim was "fatally flawed," it did so by focusing
on the "plain language" of the contract at issue there.
In the instant case, the Management Agreement's indemnification
provision may apply to first-party claims or it may not, depending
upon how the contract is ultimately interpreted. In any event, it
is not appropriate for the Court to make such a finding at this
stage of the proceedings.
The Helman parties' final argument, that their claims are not based
on conduct governed by the Management Agreement, is -- like their
other arguments -- not relevant to the Court's consideration of the
adequacy of Marriott's articulation of an indemnification claim.
According to the Helman parties, their "claims are based on
Marriott's manipulation of the vote and implementation of the
merger," and "the financial crisis that resulted from slow-walking
foreclosures was just one tool Marriott used to carry out that
manipulation."
Again, Judge Miller holds that how the Helman parties characterize
the essence of their claims in their brief is not controlling.
Whether Marriott's counterclaim for indemnification ultimately has
merit is simply not yet before the Court, and she cannot now
conclude that Marriott's indemnification counterclaim would be
futile.
B. Unjust Enrichment and the Set-Off Demand
To state a claim for unjust enrichment under the law of the Virgin
Islands, a plaintiff must allege: "(1) that the defendant was
enriched, (2) that such enrichment was at the plaintiff's expense,
(3) that the defendant had appreciation or knowledge of the
benefit, and (4) that the circumstances were such that in equity or
good conscience the defendant should return the money or property
to the plaintiff."
Judge Miller holds that Marriott has adequately pled a claim for
unjust enrichment. First, Marriott alleges that the Helman parties
were enriched. Next, Marriott alleges that the "Plaintiffs, as
Members of RC Club St. Thomas, have received significant financial
benefits from RC St. Thomas LLC under the Settlement Agreement and
the Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release dated September
2009." Marriott has therefore sufficiently articulated that the
Helman parties were enriched at Marriott's expense. Marriott has
also adequately stated the third element of an unjust enrichment
claim. Finally, Marriott satisfied the pleading requirements of the
fourth element by stating that the circumstances require the return
of monies unjustly obtained.
The Helman parties challenge the viability of this counterclaim on
multiple grounds. First, they complain that Marriott's statement of
enrichment is only phrased in the "hypothetical."
To the contrary, Judge Miller finds that Marriott expressly avers
that the Helman parties have already "received significant
financial benefits." Further, she does not find, as the Helman
parties urge, that Marriott inadequately pled that equity requires
the return of monies to Marriott by the Helman parties. She does
agree, however, that Marriott has failed to allege circumstances
that would make a set-off appropriate.
"Set-off requires mutual debts or obligations from different
transaction between the same parties." Marriott has not identified
any current debt or mutual obligation between them and the Helman
parties that would support a demand for a set-off. Rather, Marriott
simply seeks to reduce future liability should the Helman parties
prevail in the case. Thus, Marriott's request for a set-off is
stricken.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the premises considered, Judge Miller denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss and struck Marriott's request for a
set-off.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 6, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/6jzctz7u from
Leagle.com.
MECC CONTRACTING: Lewis Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mecc Contracting,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Dean Lewis, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. MECC CONTRACTING
INC., et al., Case No. 157778/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.,
Aug. 19, 2021).
Mecc Contracting, Inc. -- http://www.mecccontracting.com/--
operates as a general contracting company. The Company provides
masonry service.[BN]
MHR AUSTIN: Faces Eicker Suit in Texas Over Unlawful Tip Pooling
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARJORIE EICKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MHR AUSTIN SONIC RESTAURANTS, LLC (a/k/a SDI
Llano Texas LLC and a/k/a Sonic), Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00698
(W.D. Tex., August 12, 2021) brings this collective action
complaint against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful practice
that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal
Pay Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant at its Sonic restaurant
in Llano, Texas from approximately April 19, 2018 to approximately
July 27, 2021.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant improperly kept tips
received/earned by him and other similarly situated tipped
employees. Purportedly, those tips were not kept by the Defendant
for any valid tip pooling arrangement or for any other lawful
purpose.
The Plaintiff seeks all actual and/or statutory damages, liquidated
damages, reasonable legal fees, costs, post-judgment interest, and
all other relief to which he and other similarly situated employees
are justly entitled.
MHR Austin Sonic restaurants, LLC owns and operates numerous Sonic
restaurants. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
VAUGHT FIRM, LLC
1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel: (972) 707-7816
Fax: (972) 591-4564
E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Gee Suit Moved From S.D. Ind. to N.D. Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CLINTON GEE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-01966, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on August 17,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-04237 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence, breach of
express contract, and fraudulent concealment by its failure to
implement adequate procedures to protect the Plaintiff and other
Saint Paul's College football players from the long-term dangers
associated with traumatic brain injuries.
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is an
unincorporated association with its principal place of business
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 554-9099
Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com
- and –
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
- and –
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
EDELSON PC
123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
NATIONAL GRID: Faces ACP Class Suit Over Federal Tax Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
ACP LAND LLC, THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF RHODE ISLAND, SUNVESTMENT
ENERGY GROUP NY 64 LLC, SARANAC LAKE COMMUNITY SOLAR, LLC,
TYNGSBORO SPORTS II SOLAR, LLC, and 201 OAK PEMBROKE SOLAR LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
NATIONAL GRID PLC, NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICES CO., INC., THE
NARRAGANSETT ELECTRIC COMPANY, NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION,
MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY, and NANTUCKET ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00316-WES-LDA (D.R.I., Aug. 2, 2021) contends that
the Defendants have wrongfully passed through to Plaintiffs a
charge related to a purported federal tax that was not actually
owed.
The Plaintiffs are independent renewable energy generators. The
Defendants are electric power utilities, all subsidiaries of
National Grid PLC.
According to the complaint, the Defendants compete with Plaintiffs,
and concededly have an interest in increasing their costs, the suit
says.
Defendants National Grid PLC and its subsidiaries National Grid USA
Services Co., Inc., The Narragansett Electric Company, Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation, Massachusetts Electric Company, and
Nantucket Electric Company distribute electricity through the power
grids that they maintain in parts of Rhode Island, New York, and
Massachusetts. They are responsible for interconnecting Plaintiffs'
projects with the grid. They subsequently purchase electricity
generated by those projects.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth H. Handy, Esq.
Helen D. Anthony, Esq.
Justin T. Somelofske, Esq.
HANDY LAW, LLC
42 Weybosset Street
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 626-4839
Facsimile: (401) 753-6306
E-mail: seth@handylawllc.com
- and -
David Kovel, Esq.
David Kovel, Esq.
John R. Low-Beer, Esq.
KIRBY McINERNEY, LLP
250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
New York, NY 10177
Telephone: (212) 371-6600
Facsimile: (212) 751-2540
E-mail: dkovel@kmllp.com
- and -
Stephen M. Prignano, Esq.
MCINTYRE TATE LLP
321 South Main Street, Suite 400
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 351-7700 Ext. 227
Facsimile: (401) 331-6095
E-mail: sprignano@mcintyretate.com
NCAA: Thomas Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lance Thomas, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-02080, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 17,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-04248 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NCAA: Townsend Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Wade Townsend, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01968, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on August 17,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-04240 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NEO TECHNOLOGY: Class Certification Sought in Portier Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRIS PORTIER, et al., v.
NEO TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS dba ONCORE HOLDINGS LLC, ONCORE
MANUFACTURING, LLC, NATEL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC., NEO TECH,
INC., NEO TECH, NORTH AMERICA, and all other names used by NEO
TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, Case No. 3:17-cv-30111-TSH (D. Mass.), the
Plaintiffs Edward Snelgrove, Antonio Batalha, John Tansil, Stewart
Scoles, and Frank Roda move the Court under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(a), 23(b), 23(b)(3), 23(b)(2), 23(c)(4), and 23(g) to
enter an order:
1. certifying this action as a class action on behalf of:
"All current and former Neo Tech employees whose PII was
divulged by Neo Tech as a result of the Data Disclosure on
or about January 27, 2017;"
2. appointing them as Class Representatives for the proposed
class, and
3. appointing Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, The
Hyman Law Firm, P.A., and Attorney Michael Chernick as
Class Counsel.
The case involves the intentional, unauthorized disclosure of
sensitive employee information, including names, mailing addresses,
Social Security numbers, and wage and withholding information (PII)
of Plaintiffs and Class Members by their employer, the Defendants
Neo Technology Solutions, OnCore Manufacturing, LLC, and Natel
Engineering Co., Inc.
Neo Technology provides digital experts and offshore solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 16,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sDZquP
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
Francesca Kester, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
210 N. Franklin St., Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 559-4908
Facsimile: (813) 222-4795
E-mail: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com
fkester@forthepeople.com
- and -
Kelly Hyman, Esq.
THE HYMAN LAW FIRM, P.A.
2881 East Oakland Park Blvd.
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
Telephone: 954-315-1780
E-mail: kellyhyman@thehymanlawfirm.com
NEXXT INC: Martinez Sues Over Blind Buyers' Equal Website Access
----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEXXT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-04625-KAM-RER (E.D.N.Y., August 17, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
http://www.Nexxt.com,allegedly contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the general public
through the website. These access barriers include, but not limited
to: (a) lack of alt-text on graphics, (b) inaccessible drop-down
menus, (c) the lack of navigation links, (d) the lack of adequate
prompting and labeling, (e) the denial of keyboard access, (f)
empty links that contain no text, (g) redundant links where
adjacent links go to the same uniform resource locator (URL)
address, and (h) the requirement that transactions be performed
solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Nexxt, Inc., is a technology company, with its principal place of
business located at 676 East Swedesford Road, Wayne, Pennsylvania.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
NURTURE INC: Williams Consumer Suit Moved From D. Mon. to S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CAITLIN WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NURTURE, INC.; JOHN DOES 1-50; and ABC
BUSINESSES 1-20, Case No. 9:21-cv-00044, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Montana to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 17,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-06918-MKV to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of Magnuson
Moss Warranty Act, strict products liability, and violation of the
Montana Consumer Protection Act by manufacturing, distributing,
labeling, and selling baby food products with dangerous levels of
heavy metals.
Nurture, Inc. is an organic baby and toddler food company, with its
headquarters in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Martin Rogers, Esq.
Jesse Kodadek, Esq.
Jennifer Shannon, Esq.
WORDEN THANE P.C.
321 W. Broadway St., Ste. 300
Missoula, MT 59802
Telephone: (406) 721-3400
E-mail: mrogers@wordenthane.com
jkodadek@wordenthane.com
jshannon@wordenthane.com
OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL: Judgment on Pleadings in Chavez Suit Vacated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TOBIAS BERMUDEZ CHAVEZ, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees
v. OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A SUCCESSOR
TO OTHER OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL COMPANY OTHER OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS INC. OTHER HOOKER CHEMICAL AND PLASTICS OTHER
OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL COMPANY OF TEXAS OTHER BEST FERTILIZER COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 18-1120-cv (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the order denying
Occidental's motion for judgment on the pleadings and remanded the
case to the district court with instructions to enter judgment in
Occidental's favor.
Over the course of nearly three decades, the instant and the
related putative class actions have wended their way through United
States federal and state courts. The Second Circuit relies on and
incorporate here by reference the background and procedural
histories of these cases as set forth at length in its prior
opinion (Chavez v. Occidental Chem. Corp., 933 F.3d 186, 190-95 (2d
Cir. 2019) ("Chavez").
The putative class action and others like it arose from
Occidental's manufacture, distribution, sale, and use of
dibromochloropropane ("DBCP"), a pesticide to which the
Plaintiffs-Appellees were allegedly exposed when they worked and
lived on banana plantations in Central and South America between
the 1960s and the 1980s. Exposure to DBCP, a suspected carcinogen,
also allegedly caused, among other infirmities: sterility, reduced
sperm quality and quantity, liver damage, vision loss, chronic skin
disorders, and compromised pulmonary and respiratory systems. While
the risks associated with DBCP exposure were allegedly known to
some manufacturers as early as 1961 and at least by 1976,
"Occidental nevertheless continued to manufacture, sell, market,
and distribute DBCP until at least 1979 for agricultural use,
including on banana plantations in Costa Rica, Panama, and
Ecuador."
In the 1990s, groups of plaintiffs who had been exposed to DBCP on
banana plantations in Costa Rica, Panama, and Ecuador began filing
putative class actions against Occidental and other defendants.
Relevant in the case, in August 1993, one group of plaintiffs --
which did not include any of the Plaintiffs-Appellees in the case
-- brought an action in Texas state court. Dead Sea Bromine, a
corporation indirectly owned in part by the State of Israel, was
impleaded by the defendants and removed the Texas case to federal
court ("Texas Action").
In April 1995, the defendants in the Texas Action moved to dismiss
the suit on forum non conveniens grounds; the district court
conditionally granted the motion. In its July 11, 1995 order, the
Texas district court attempted to "ensure availability of an
alternative forum" by "conditioning dismissal not only on the
defendants' and third-party defendants' stipulation to waive all
jurisdictional and limitations defenses but also upon acceptance of
jurisdiction by the foreign courts involved in these cases." Also
pending before the district court was the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, which it administratively denied as moot.
The Texas court's order also included the following "return
jurisdiction" clause: Notwithstanding the dismissals that may
result from this Memorandum and Order, in the event that the
highest court of any foreign country finally affirms the dismissal
for lack of jurisdiction of any action commenced by a plaintiff in
these actions in his home country or the country in which he was
injured, that plaintiff may return to this court and, upon proper
motion, the court will resume jurisdiction over the action as if
the case had never been dismissed for forum non conveniens.
The Texas Action defendants proceeded to meet the conditions for
dismissal, and on Oct. 27, 1995, "the district court entered a
'final judgment' dismissing the action." The plaintiffs appealed,
challenging the district court's exercise of subject matter
jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA").
The Fifth Circuit concluded, inter alia, that Israel's indirect
ownership of a majority interest in Dead Sea Bromine through a
"tiered structure" of corporate entities qualified Dead Sea Bromine
as a "foreign state" within the meaning of the FSIA such that Dead
Sea Bromine properly removed the case to federal court and the
district court had subject matter jurisdiction over it. In so
holding, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal
of the action on forum non conveniens grounds.
In a decision arising out of similar DBCP litigation in Hawaii that
ultimately reached the Supreme Court, the Court held that "a
corporation is an instrumentality of a foreign state under the FSIA
only if the foreign state itself owns a majority of the
corporation's shares," see Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S.
468, 477, 480 (2003). Because the State of Israel "owned a majority
of shares, at various times, in companies one or more corporate
tiers above the Dead Sea Companies," Dead Sea Bromine was not an
"agency or instrumentality of a foreign state" within the meaning
of the FSIA. This in turn rendered improper Dead Sea Bromine's
removals of the Texas and Hawaii actions to federal court: No
federal subject matter jurisdiction existed.
In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Patrickson, the
plaintiffs in the Texas Action moved to vacate the district court's
July 1995 Order. In March 2004, that court "issued a final judgment
denying the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the July 1995 Order but
indicated that it would consider remanding the case to Texas state
court upon the filing of a properly supported motion." The
plaintiffs subsequently filed such a motion, which the court
granted. The court accordingly remanded the case to Texas state
court.
The Texas state court then granted the plaintiffs' motion to
reinstate their claims. In June 2010, however, the Texas court
denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The day
after this denial, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
claims, effectively ending the Texas litigation.
The separate but similar litigation underlying the appeal began as
eight lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware in June 2012. The Delaware district court consolidated the
cases into two actions, one of which was captioned Chavez v. Dole
Food Co. Defendant Occidental moved to dismiss Chavez v. Dole Food
Co. on personal jurisdiction grounds. In May 2017, the Delaware
court granted Occidental's motion in part and transferred the
plaintiffs' claims against Occidental to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. On Sept. 1, 2017,
Occidental moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the
Plaintiffs' claims were time-barred.
The district court (Paul A. Engelmayer, J.) denied Occidental's
motion. It first concluded that the Pplaintiffs' claims were timely
because, even though New York courts had not yet spoken on the
issue, it thought that New York law would recognize the doctrine of
"cross-jurisdictional class action tolling," meaning that the
pendency of the Texas Action tolled these Plaintiffs' claims in the
Southern District of New York. Second, the district court concluded
that the Texas district court's 1995 Orders did not terminate
tolling because they "did not clearly disallow class status" and
that "absent class members such as the Plaintiffs in the case could
therefore reasonably have relied thereafter on the continued
maintenance of the Texas Action" as tolling the statute of
limitations.
Further, the court reasoned, the July 1995 Order was "only a
conditional dismissal" which "held out the guarantee of resuming
jurisdiction as if the case had never been dismissed." According to
the district court, the underlying claims were tolled until June
2010, when the Texas state court denied class certification on the
merits. The Plaintiffs' claims were therefore timely under the
applicable three-year statute of limitations. The district court
recognized, however, that its conclusions hinged on unresolved
questions of New York law which, as a district court, it was unable
to certify to the New York Court of Appeals. It encouraged the
Second Circuit to do so on appeal.
In a subsequent opinion and order, the district court denied
Occidental's motion for reconsideration. On April 18, 2018, the
Second Circuit granted Occidental leave to file an interlocutory
appeal.
On appeal, the Second Circuit recognized that while New York had
adopted the class action tolling rule of American Pipe and
Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), this doctrine was
not dispositive of the issues presented. In American Pipe, the
Supreme Court held that "commencement of the original class suit
tolls the running of the statute of limitations for all purported
members of the class." American Pipe tolling, however, is not
synonymous with cross-jurisdictional class action tolling, i.e.,
whether a class action filed in another jurisdiction "tolls the New
York statute of limitations for absent class members' claims in New
York courts."
To these ends, the Second Circuit certified two questions to the
New York Court of Appeals: (1) Does New York law recognize
cross-jurisdictional class action tolling?; and (2) Can a
non-merits dismissal of class certification terminate class action
tolling, and if so, did the Orders at issue here do so?
The New York Court of Appeals answered both questions in the
affirmative. The court first held that, as the district court
predicted, New York law recognizes cross-jurisdictional class
action tolling. New York CPLR article 9, which codifies class
action procedures, "was modeled on similar federal law,
specifically," like Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, aims "to
enable individuals injured by the same pattern of conduct by
another to pool their resources and collectively seek relief where
their individual damages may not be sufficient to justify the costs
of litigation." A holding that New York law did not recognize
cross-jurisdictional class action tolling "would subvert article
9," and run counter to "the same animating policies the United
States Supreme Court discussed in American Pipe and its progeny
which also underlie article 9."
Contrary to the district court's holding, however, and by a vote of
four to three, the Court of Appeals also answered the second
question as to when tolling ends and whether the 1995 Orders
terminated tolling here in the affirmative. The Court of Appeals
held: "Tolling ends when there is a clear dismissal of a putative
class action, including a dismissal for forum non conveniens, or
denial of class certification for any reason. Under those
circumstances, future plaintiffs are on notice that they must take
steps to protect their rights because the litigation no longer
compels the court to address class certification or the named
plaintiffs to advance absent class members' interests. At that
point, it is no longer objectively reasonable for absent class
members to rely upon the existence of a putative class action to
vindicate their rights, and tolling is extinguished. Thus, in this
case, the 1995 Texas orders that dismissed that action on forum non
conveniens grounds ended tolling, as a matter of law."
The Plaintiffs sought re-argument before the Court of Appeals.
Their motion was denied.
The New York Court of Appeals' answers to the Second Circuit's
certified questions compel the conclusions that the Texas district
court's 1995 Orders terminated tolling, and therefore, that the
Plaintiffs-Appellees' claims in the case before the Second Circuit
are untimely. The July 1995 Order conditionally dismissed the
action on forum non conveniens grounds and administratively denied
the class certification motion as moot. Delgado, 890 F. Supp. at
1375. Even if this conditional dismissal were not dispositive, the
October 1995 Order, which entered a "final judgment" dismissing the
Texas Action, terminated tolling.
The Plaintiffs-Appellees' claims, which accrued no later than
August 31, 1993, are thus untimely under New York's three-year
statute of limitations for personal injury actions, which the
parties agreed applies. Occidental is therefore entitled to
judgment in its favor on the grounds that the plaintiffs-appellees'
claims are time-barred.
For the foregoing reasons, the order denying Occidental's motion
for judgment on the pleadings is vacated and the case is remanded
to the district court with instructions to enter judgment,
consistent with its Opinion and the Court of Appeals' answers to
its certified questions, in Occidental's favor.
The other Plaintiffs-Appellees are GERARDO ANTONIO FONESCA TORRES,
FRANKLIN GUILLEN SALAZAR, GARCIA MONTES JOSE GABINO, MARIANO DE LOS
ANGELES PIZARRO, ANTONIO OSORNO OSORNO, EUSEBIO PEREZ DINARTES,
ANGEL NAPTALI AGILA SALINAS, JOSE VICENTE CAMPOS DEL PESO, GABRIEL
RODOLFO CAMPOVE ARCE, JOSE ANTONIO E. ESPINOZA, MANUEL ISAIAS
ESTRADA MOSQUERA, PEDRO RAMON GARCIA VILLON, MANUEL JESUS INGA
DOMINGUEZ, JOSE VIRGILIO LOPEZ CORREA, JUAN BAUTISTA NORIEG
MOREIRA, ANGEL RAFAEL ROMERO CASTRO, JULIAN GONZALO SUAREZ DEL
ROSARIO, SIXTO TORRES FARIAS, TEODORO FERNANDO UNAMUN CORONEL,
IDELFONSO ARAUZ ARAUZ, HECTOR ARCIA, SANTOS CAMARENA-CABALLERO,
FULVIO CESAR CHAVEZ SUIRA, JOSE ANTONIO GONZALE HERNANDEZ, VALENTIN
MONTERO MENDEZ, JUSTO GERMAN OPORTO VILCHEZ, JULIO SEVILLA FLORES,
FELIX VARGAS RODRIGUEZ, LEOCADIO ZURDO AMADOR, JULIO ABREGO ABREGO,
BERNARDO ABREGO JORIETO, SIMON ABREGO PINEDA, ONCHI ABREGO
QUINTERO, DILVIO ALVAREZ MORENO, JUAN CHOLY APARICIO, FRANCISCO DEL
SOCORRO BAT MORA, CELIO BONILLA VALDEZ, PEDRO BRICENO ESCALANTE,
SANTIAGO CASTILO CASTILLO, LIBERATO CASTILO CASTILLO, GERARDO
DELEON ZAPATA, ABNEGO GUILLERMO DUGEL WILLIAMS, FELICIMO DUGUEL
MICHI, MANUEL GONZALES SANCHEZ, ERNESTO GUADAMUZ, HILARIO JULIAN
MILTON, RICARDO ADOLFO MALDONAD SMITH, JOSE MIRANDA NICO, PANCHO
MOLINA ACUNA, RAMON ABREGO, LORENZO MORALES MORALES, JULIO MORENO
MONTEZUMA, MARIO MUNOZ SANTOS, ALEJANDRO PALACIO PINEDA, GENITO
QUINTERO GONZALEZ, GREGORIO ELLINGTON, DIONICIO SANTIAGO ABREGO,
SIMON SANTOS VILLAGRA, JULIO SANTOS SANTOS, NAPOLEON SERRANO NITI,
VICTORIANO SERRANO CHICO, SAMUEL SMITH SMITH, SAMUEL TAYLOR ERA,
DEMETRIO WILLIAMS JIMENEZ, SEBASTIAN WILLIAMS MIGAR, ALVARADO
ALFARFO MIGUEL FRANCISCO, EDGAR ARROYO GONZALEZ, MARCELO COREA
COREA, JOSE DAIZ BENAVIDEZ, GONZALEZ MARIN MARVIN, MIGUEL ANGEL
MORALES GUZMAN, RODRIGO QUIROS CHAVARRIA, GUILLER SANDRE REYES
MORA, VEGA UGALDE NORMAN, FLORENTINO GILBERTO ALCIBA MONTESARRATE,
TOMAS GILBERTO ASUNCI QUIMI, ODILO CASTRO LOPEZ, JOSE SANTIAGO LOJA
ALVARADO, RICARDO ALBERTO ORRALA RAMIREZ, JOSE NICANOR PACHECO
URGILES, LUIS ALFONSO PALADIN ILLESCAS, MANUEL JOSE PORRAS ALVAREZ,
JOSE LEONCIO PUCHA VILLAMAGUA, LEOPOLDO MAURICIO QUEZAD VITONERA,
GERMASN ELEUTERIO RAMIR OYOLA, EUGENIO DE JESUS VIVAR SANCHEZ,
ESTEBAN GARCIA ACOSTA, MARIANO GONZALEZ PITTI, HECTOR GUTIERREZ
VICTORIA, WILLFREDO MIRANDA PATINO, JUAN DEDIOS QUINTERO, MARIO
REYES SALDANA, DANIEL RODRIGUEZ MADRID, ARCENIO RODRIGUEZ GALLARDO,
FERMIN ROMERO DE LEON, JAVIER ENRIQUE RUBIO MORALES, MARGARITO
SALINAS MOJICA, BASILIO SALINAS MOJICA, LINO VILLARREAL CONCEPCION,
JORGE LUIS AGUILAR MORA, CARLOS AGUIRRE FLORES ALVAREZ, JUAN JOSE
ARGUELLO JIMENEZ, JOSE BUSTOS OSES, RAFAEL BUSTOS BUSTOS, GERMAN
FALLAS HERRERA, ELIZONDO GUARIN EDUARDO, FEDERICO CLEVER MONTERO
SALAS, JULIAN ALVAREZ JOVINO, NERTOR EVELINO CACAY CORDOVA, JOSE
DARIO CHICA ROMERO, MARIANO CRUZ JIMENEZ GUANOQUIZA, ALCIDES
HUMBERTO LUPU REYES, MANUEL BENIGNO ORTIS, MIGUEL ANGEL QUITO
AREVALO, GREGORIO JUAN TORRES TENESACA, FRANCISCO OSWALDO VILLACR
MENDOZA, EULOGIO APOLOGIO ZAMBRA OTERO, ALCIDES BAULES RODRIGUEZ,
LAUDINO CABALLERO RIOS, AGRIPINO CAMARENA CEDENO, DOMINGO CASTILLO
MORALES, DANIEL CENSION CAMANO, DANIEL ESPINOSA MITRE, OSCAR ALEXIS
GANTES ARAUZ, CESAR AUGUSTO GONZALE CABALLERO, EDUARDO GONZALEZ
CABALLERO, ENEDICTO JIMENEZ MIRANDA, RAFAEL MARTINEZ GONZALEZ,
AURELIO MIRANDA DIAZ, MARCOS MORALES GUTIERREZ, ABRAHAM MORENO
CONCEPCION, JUAN ADOLFO OLIVERO MAGUE, LEOPOLDO PENA SANJUR,
PAULINO PITTY SANCHEZ, LUIS ENRIQUE NAVARRO QUINTERO, CATALINO
ROSALES PINEDA, NICOLAS SANTOS MONTENEGRO, CATALINO SERRUD, SANTOS
TORRES PINZON, AQUILINO VIGIL SANCHEZ, EDWIN AGUERO JIMENEZ, JORGE
AGUERO RETANA, ALBERTO CONEJO CHACON, DIDIER CORDERO CISNEROS,
ESTANISLAO CRUZ CRUZ, MIGUEL ANTONIO DIAZ CORDERO, DOGABERTO
ESQUIVEL VALDELOMAR, JOSE GAMBOA CASTILLO, MARCOS GOLUBOAY MEJIAS,
ROGER ANTONIO LOPEZ ZAMORA, RUFINO MATARRITA MORENO, JOSE FABIO
NUNEZ CASTRO, CARLOS LUIS PEREIRA OROZCO, FRANCISCO PEREIRA
RAMIREZ, CARLOS MANUEL QUIROS ZUNIGA, WILLIAM FELICIANO RODRIGUEZ,
JOSE ANGEL ROJAS BARQUERO, HERNAN SOLANO CASTRO, RAFAEL SOLANO
SABORIO, MARIO TORRES MORA, RAFAEL VALDERRAMA GRANADOS, GREIVIN
VALENCIA LOPEZ, MELECIO VARELA SOTO, VICTOR VARGAS ARIAS, NIXON
MODESTO ALVARAD VASQUEZ, ROBERTO WILLIAM BARONA BENITES, LAURO
OLMEDO CHACON QUICHIMBO, FRANCISCO DOMINGO CONTRER ESPINOZA,
EPIFANIO ARCHIBALDO CORN LEON, MANUEL GUAICHA CARDENAS, JUAN DE
JESUS HUERTA MOSQUERA, MIGUEL ANGEL INIGUEZ OCHOA, HUGO EBERIO LEON
VELEZ, MILTON MEDARDO MAZA VIVANCO, ROSARIO AVELINO NICANOR
VIRGILIO, GALO MIGUEL ORBE VALENCIA, JOSE NICANOR PACHECO URGILES,
ERICK FRANKLIN PALOMI ROMERO, ANGEL RAFAEL ROMERO CASTRO, LUIS
VINICIO SALVATI VILLA, MIGUEL ANGEL SARAGURO, JOSE FERNANDO SARMIE
CABRERA, LUIS GILBERTO VASQUE LOPEZ, EUGENIO APOLINARIO VILL
PRIMITIVO, MAURO GREGORIO ZERDA GUERRA, BELISARIO ATENCIO MUNOZ,
LUIS ALBERTO BARRIA ARAUZ, BENEDICTO CORELLA VASQUEZ, HUMBERTO DEL
CID QUINTERO, ABEL GALLARDO CONCEPCION, ALCIBIADES GOMEZ QUIEL,
CIRO GUTIERREZ CORTEZ, SALVADOR MILLAN PENALBA, MANUEL MAYORGA
MOREDIBU, FELIX ANTONIO QUIROZ MORANTE, EMILIANO VEGA MORALES,
GONZALEZ ARAYA FRANKLIN, GERMAN EDUARDO BRAVO VALDERRAMOS, EDWIN
CERDAS MASIS, JORGE LUIS CORDERO BAQUERO, JOHNNY ESPINOZA GAMBOA,
ESNEY HERNANDEZ FAJARDO, JIMENEZ RAMIREZ GILBERTO, ALVARADO
RODRIGUEZ WILBERT, JOSE MANUEL SALAZAR BRENES, AUDIT VARGAS ROBLES,
ELVIN VARGAS BLANCO, ROLANDO VILLEGAS JIMENEZ, ELEVIO VINDAS
ZAMORA, DOUGLAS ROLANDO SANCHEZ, VICENTE BARRIA ARAUZ, GENARO
BONILLA QUINTERO, NOEL ENRIQUE VALDES RODRIGUEZ, MARIO ESTEBAN
CACERAS HERNANDEZ, TOMAS ALBERTO CEDENO RODRIGUEZ, WILFREDO GOMEZ
VARGAS, EVIDELIO GONZALEZ ACOSTA, EDWIN ENUVIN GUERRA GONZALEZ,
JUAN DEDIOS BAUTISTA SANCHEZ, RONALDO MORALES VARGAS, LIONEX
MORALES MONTENEGRO, ALBERTO PINEDA MARQUINEZ, RAFAEL PINEDA
MARQUINEZ, FELIX ANTONIO PINEDA ESPINOSA, ERICK ELIAS PINEDA
JURADO, PABLO RIVERA BUICOBO, ISRAEL SANCHEZ GONZALEZ and ADOLFO
VEGA GUERRA.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 6, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/u9zv7j53 from Leagle.com.
JOHN P. ELWOOD -- jelwood@velaw.com -- Vinson & Elkins LLP,
Washington, DC (D. Ferguson McNiel, III -- fmcniel@velaw.com --
Vinson & Elkins LLP, in Houston, Texas, Timothy Jay Houseal --
thouseal@ycst.com -- Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, in
Wilmington, Delaware, on the brief), for Defendant-Appellant.
JONATHAN S. MASSEY -- jmassey@masseygail.com -- Massey & Gail LLP,
Washington, DC (Paul J. Berks -- pberks@masseygail.com -- Massey &
Gail LLP, in Chicago, Illinois, Scott M. Hendler, Hendler Flores
Law PLLC, in Austin, Texas, on the brief), for
Plaintiffs-Appellees.
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Jury Trial in Weiner Suit to Begin March 7, 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that jury trial in Weiner v.
Ocwen Financial Corp., et al.; 2:14-cv-02597-MCE-DB, was recently
rescheduled to commence March 7, 2022.
Ocwen is a defendant in a certified class action in the U.S.
District Court in the Eastern District of California where the
plaintiffs claim Ocwen marked up fees for property valuations and
title searches in violation of California state law.
Ocwen's motion for summary judgment, filed in June 2019, was denied
in May 2020; however, the court did rule that plaintiff'
recoverable damages are limited to out-of-pocket costs, i.e., the
amount of marked-up fees actually paid, rather than the entire cost
of the valuation that plaintiffs sought.
A jury trial was recently rescheduled to commence March 7, 2022.
At this time, Ocwen is unable to predict the outcome of this
lawsuit or any additional lawsuits that may be filed, the possible
loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of
such lawsuits or the potential impact such lawsuits may have on us
or our operations.
Ocwen intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.
Ocwen said, "If our efforts to defend this lawsuit are not
successful, our business, financial condition liquidity and results
of operations could be materially and adversely affected. Ocwen may
have affirmative indemnification rights and/or other claims against
third parties related to the allegations in the lawsuit. Although
we may pursue these claims, we cannot currently estimate the
amount, if any, of recoveries from these third parties."
Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company,
originates and services loans in the United States, the United
States Virgin Islands, India, and the Philippines. Ocwen Financial
Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm
Beach, Florida.
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Portions of Settlement in Morris Suit Renegotiated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that after the preliminary
approval hearing, PHH Mortgage Corporation (PMC) and plaintiffs
renegotiated portions of the settlement agreement to address
several questions raised by the Court, and subsequently filed a
renewed motion for preliminary approval.
The company is subject to individual lawsuits relating to its Fair
Debt Collection Practices Ac (FDCPA) compliance and putative state
law class actions based on the FDCPA and state laws similar to the
FDCPA.
Ocwen has recently agreed to a settlement in principle of a
putative class action, Morris v. PHH Mortgage Corp., filed in March
2020 in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida, alleging that PHH Mortgage Corporation's (PMC's) and
legacy Ocwen's practices of charging a fee to borrowers who
voluntarily choose to use certain optional expedited payment
options violate the FDCPA and its state law analogs.
Several similar putative class actions have been filed against PMC
and Ocwen since July 2019.
Following mediation, PMC agreed to the terms of a settlement
agreement to resolve all claims in the Morris matter. A motion
requesting preliminary approval of the settlement was filed on
August 25, 2020.
Several third parties, including a group of State Attorneys
General, have filed papers opposing preliminary approval, and these
third parties could ultimately file objections to the proposed
settlement.
Following the preliminary approval hearing, PMC and plaintiffs
renegotiated portions of the settlement agreement to address
several questions raised by the Court and subsequently filed a
renewed motion for preliminary approval.
Ocwen expects final approval of the Morris settlement will resolve
the claims of the majority of the putative class members described
in the other similar cases that Ocwen is defending. Ocwen cannot
guarantee that the proposed settlement will receive final approval
and in the absence of such approval, Ocwen cannot predict the
eventual outcome of the Morris proceeding and similar putative
class actions.
Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company,
originates and services loans in the United States, the United
States Virgin Islands, India, and the Philippines. Ocwen Financial
Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm
Beach, Florida.
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Trial in Munoz Suit to Begin February 15, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the Court in Munoz v.
PHH Mortgage Corp. et al., No. 1:08-cv-00759-DAD-BAM (E.D. Ca.),
scheduled trial to begin on February 15, 2022.
The company continues to be involved in legacy matters arising
prior to Ocwen's October 2018 acquisition of PHH Mortgage
Corporation's (PMC), including a putative class action filed in
2008 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of California against PHH and related entities in alleging that
PHH's legacy mortgage reinsurance arrangements between its captive
reinsurer, Atrium Insurance Corporation, and certain mortgage
insurance providers violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act (RESPA).
In June 2015, the court certified a class of borrowers who
obtained loans with private mortgage insurance through PHH's
captive reinsurance arrangement between June 2, 2007 and December
31, 2009. PHH has asserted numerous defenses to the merits of the
case.
On August 12, 2020, the Court granted, in part, Plaintiffs' Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment. The only issue remaining for trial is
whether the reinsurance services provided by PHH's captive
reinsurance subsidiary, Atrium, were actually provided in order for
the safe harbor provision of RESPA to apply. Pre-trial conferences
were held on February 1, 2021 and May 24, 2021.
Following the pre-trial conferences, the Court scheduled trial to
begin on February 15, 2022.
PHH accrued $2.5 million when the case was filed in 2008 and that
amount is included in the $46.9 million legal and regulatory
accrual referenced above. At this time, Ocwen is unable to predict
the outcome of this lawsuit or any additional lawsuits that may be
filed, the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with
the resolution of such lawsuits or the potential impact such
lawsuits may have on the company or the operations.
Ocwen intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.
Ocwen said, "If our efforts to defend this lawsuit are not
successful, our business, reputation, financial condition liquidity
and results of operations could be materially and adversely
affected."
Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company,
originates and services loans in the United States, the United
States Virgin Islands, India, and the Philippines. Ocwen Financial
Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm
Beach, Florida.
OH MY GREEN: Settlement in Kastler Suit Gets Initial Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNE KASTLER, et al., v.
OH MY GREEN, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-02411-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. enters an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement.
On February 28, 2019, the Plaintiff Kastler filed a wage and hour
putative class action complaint against the Defendant in the San
Mateo County Superior Court. The Plaintiff Kastler was employed by
Defendant as an hourly, non-24 employee in California from November
2016 to February 2017.
On May 9, 2019, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the
Court dismissed as moot after Plaintiff Kastler filed a First
Amended Complaint (FAC). The FAC asserted eight causes of action
for violations of California Labor Code including unpaid overtime,
unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, and
unpaid minimum wages.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sCDtfN at no extra charge.[CC]
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Appeal in SEPTA Initiated Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal
on the Court's decision in issuing an Order and Memorandum granting
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority's (SEPTA)
motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, is pending.
On May 25, 2012, The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority's (SEPTA) filed a putative class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against
the Company, the Bank and certain current and former directors and
officers.
The complaint alleged, among other things, that (i) in connection
with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated
February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23,
2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 24, 2010
through October 27, 2011, the Company issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's lending practices and
financial results, including misleading statements concerning the
stringent nature of the Bank's credit practices and underwriting
standards, the quality of its loan portfolio, and the intended use
of the proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public offering of
common stock.
The complaint asserted claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and sought class certification, unspecified money
damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief.
Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
("PSLRA"), the Court appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiff on August 20,
2012.
On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint. The amended
complaint expanded the list of defendants in the action to include
the Company's former independent registered public accounting firm,
Smith Elliott Kearns & Company, LLC ("SEK"), and the underwriters
of the Company's March 2010 public offering of common stock. In
addition, among other things, the amended complaint extended the
purported 1934 Exchange Act class period from March 15, 2010
through April 5, 2012.
On June 22, 2015, in a 96-page Memorandum, the Court dismissed
without prejudice SEPTA's amended complaint against all defendants,
finding that SEPTA failed to state a claim under either the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended. On February 8, 2016, the Court granted SEPTA's
motion for leave to amend again and SEPTA filed its second amended
complaint that same day.
On December 7, 2016, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum
granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions to dismiss
SEPTA's second amended complaint. The Court granted the motions to
dismiss the Securities Act claims against all defendants, and
granted the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 claims against all defendants except Orrstown Financial
Services, Inc., Orrstown Bank, Thomas R. Quinn, Jr., Bradley S.
Everly, and Jeffrey W. Embly. The Court also denied the motions to
dismiss the Exchange Act Section 20(a) claims against Quinn,
Everly, and Embly.
On December 15, 2017, the Orrstown Defendants and SEPTA exchanged
expert reports in opposition to and in support of class
certification, respectively. On January 15, 2018, the parties
exchanged expert rebuttal reports. SEPTA has not yet filed a motion
for class certification.
On August 9, 2018, SEPTA filed a motion to compel the production of
Confidential Supervisory Information (CSI) of non-parties the Board
of Governors of the FRB and the Pennsylvania Department of Banking
and Securities, in the possession of Orrstown and third parties.
On August 30, 2018, the FRB filed an unopposed motion to intervene
in the Action for the purpose of opposing SEPTA's motion to compel.
On February 12, 2019, the Court denied SEPTA's motion to compel the
production of CSI on the ground that SEPTA had failed to exhaust
its administrative remedies.
On April 11, 2019, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to file a third
amended complaint. The proposed third amended complaint seeks to
reassert the Securities Act claims that the Court dismissed as to
all defendants on December 7, 2016, when the Court granted in part
and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss SEPTA's second
amended complaint. The proposed third amended complaint also seeks
to reassert the Exchange Act claims against those defendants that
the Court dismissed from the case on December 7, 2016.
On June 13, 2019, Orrstown filed a motion for protective order to
stay discovery pending resolution of SEPTA's motion for leave to
file a third amended complaint. On July 17, 2019, the Court entered
an Order partially granting Orrstown's motion for protective order,
ruling that all deposition discovery in the case was stayed pending
a decision on SEPTA's motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint.
Party and non-party document discovery in the case has largely been
completed. On February 14, 2020, the Court issued an Order and
Memorandum granting SEPTA's motion for leave to file a third
amended complaint. The third amended complaint is now the operative
complaint. It reinstates the Orrstown Defendants, as well as SEK
and the underwriter defendants, previously dismissed from the case
on December 7, 2016.
The third amended complaint also revives the previously dismissed
Securities Act claim against the Orrstown Defendants, SEK, and the
underwriter defendants. Defendants filed their motions to dismiss
the third amended complaint on April 24, 2020.
SEPTA's opposition was filed on July 8, 2020, and Orrstown's reply
brief was filed on August 12, 2020. The motions to dismiss the
third amended complaint are currently pending.
Additionally, on February 24, 2020, the Orrstown Defendants, and
the underwriter defendants and SEK, separately filed motions under
28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) asking the District Court to certify its
February 14, 2020 Order granting leave to file the third amended
complaint for interlocutory appeal to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals. The District Court granted those motions on July 17, 2020,
and defendants filed their Petition for Permission to Appeal with
the Third Circuit on July 27, 2020.
The Third Circuit granted permission to appeal the Order pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) on August 13, 2020. Defendants filed
their joint Opening Brief in the Third Circuit on November 2, 2020,
asking the Court to reverse the district court's Order. SEPTA filed
its responsive brief on December 2, 2020 and defendants filed their
reply brief on December 23, 2020. Oral argument was held on
February 10, 2021. The Third Circuit's decision is pending.
The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA's third amended
complaint are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously
against those claims. It is not possible at this time to reasonably
estimate possible losses, or even a range of reasonably possible
losses, in connection with the litigation.
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. operates as the holding company
for Orrstown Bank that provides commercial banking and trust
services in the United States. The company provides its banking and
bank-related services through branches located in Berks,
Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, Perry, and York counties
of Pennsylvania, as well as Washington County, Maryland. Orrstown
Financial Services, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered
in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania.
PAPA MURPHY'S: Proceedings in Brown Suit Stayed Pending Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EVAN BROWN, Plaintiff v. PAPA MURPHY'S HOLDINGS
INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants, Case No. C19-5514 BHS-JRC (W.D.
Wash.), Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Tacoma, granted the Defendants'
motion to certify the District Court's April 22, 2021 Order for
interlocutory appeal and to stay proceedings during pendency of
appeal.
The matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
("R&R") of the Hon. J. Richard Creatura, U.S. Magistrate Judge, and
Plaintiff Brown's objections to the R&R.
Mr. Brown, a former Papa Murphy's shareholder, initiated the
putative class action in June 2019. He alleges in his Second
Amended Complaint ("SAC") that the Defendants violated Sections
14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.
Sections 78n(e), 78t(a), by allegedly making materially false and
misleading statements contained in a Recommendation Statement made
in connection with a tender offer to acquire shares of Papa
Murphy's.
The Defendants moved to dismiss the SAC, and Judge Creatura issued
a R&R, recommending that the Court denies the Defendants' motion to
dismiss. The Defendants objected, and on April 22, 2021, the Court
adopted the January R&R in full. The Defendants argued in both
their motion to dismiss and in their objections that there is no
private right of action for Section 14(e) claims predicated on
negligence. Both Judge Creatura and this Court rejected this
argument, declining to disturb existing Ninth Circuit precedent.
The Defendants then filed a motion to certify this Court's April 22
Order for interlocutory appeal and to stay proceedings during
pendency of appeal. Judge Creatura issued the instant R&R,
recommending that the Court grant the motion and stay the
proceedings pending appellate review. Brown objected, to which the
Defendants responded.
The party seeking certification has the burden of showing that
exceptional circumstances justify a departure from the "basic
policy of postponing appellate review until after the entry of a
final judgment."
The R&R concluded that Defendants have met their burden in
establishing the need for an interlocutory appeal, and Brown
objects to the R&R's conclusion that an appeal may materially
advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Brown argues
that the R&R does not acknowledge or address his argument that this
is not a pure negligence action, as he was required to sufficiently
allege subjective falsity, which is akin to scienter. D
Judge Settle holds that the Defendants correctly highlight that an
interlocutory appeal would materially advance the termination of
litigation because the Ninth Circuit could decide that there is no
private right of action for any 14(e) claims or that there is no
private right of action for a negligence-based 14(e) claim. An
immediate appeal could terminate the entirety of the litigation, or
it could terminate the litigation regarding Brown's
negligence-based 14(e) claims. As the R&R noted, 28 U.S.C. Section
1292(b) does not required that a defendant prove that interlocutory
appeal must have a final, dispositive effect on the litigation. The
R&R correctly concluded that Defendants met their burden in showing
that an interlocutory appeal may materially advance the termination
of litigation, even if it only terminates one of Brown's claims.
Therefore, Judge Settle, having considered the R&R, the Plaintiff's
objections, and the remaining record, adopted the R&R. He granted
the Defendants' motion to certify the District Court's April 22,
2021 Order for interlocutory appeal and to stay proceedings during
pendency of appeal. The Judge stayed the further proceedings in the
Court pending the filing of a petition for permission to appeal in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the disposition of
that petition, and the disposition of any appeal permitted by the
Ninth Circuit. The parties will file a joint status report
regarding the resolution of any remaining issues within 14 days of
an order resolving the appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5a4yr82u from Leagle.com.
PETROQUEST ENERGY: Seeks Denial of Hoog Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN HOOG, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. PETROQUEST ENERGY,
L.L.C., WSGP GAS PRODUCING, LLC, and TRINITY OPERATING (USG), LLC,
Case No. 6:16-cv-00463-RAW (E.D. Okla.), the Defendants asks the
Court to enter an order:
1. denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification;
and
2. dismissing the Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action
Complaint.
PetroQuest is an independent energy company engaged in the
exploration, development, acquisition and production of oil and
natural gas reserves.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 16, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kdAwyg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
431 Main Street, Suite D
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 698-2770
Facsimile: (405) 234-5506
E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
ryan@bradwil.com
- and -
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
Ryan C. Hudson, Esq.
Scott B. Goodger, Esq.
SHARP LAW, LLP
5301 W. 75th Street
Prairie Village, KS 66208
E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
rhudson@midwest-law.com
sgoodger@midwest-law.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michele R. Blythe, Esq.
NEXT ERA ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC
700 Universe Blvd.
Juno Beach, FL 33408
Telephone: (561) 691-7207
Facsimile: (561) 691-7103
E-mail: Michele.Blythe@nexteraenergy.com
- and -
John J. Griffin, Jr., Esq.
L. Mark Walker, Esq.
CROWE & DUNLEVY
324 North Robinson Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 235-7718
Facsimile: (405) 272-5225
E-mail: John.griffin@crowedunlevy.com
Mark.walker@crowedunlevy.com
- and -
Michael D. Morfey, Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
600 Travis Street, Suite 4200
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 220-4200
Facsimile: (713) 220-4285
E-mail: MichaelMorfey@HuntonAK.com
PLAID INC: Sept. 30 Hearing on Approval of Privacy Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE PLAID INC. PRIVACY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT
RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS, Master Docket No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland Division, issued an order
on the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement.
As a result of months-long settlement efforts, on June 11, 2021,
the Parties reached agreement on certain material settlement
terms.
On June 16, 2021, the Parties filed a stipulation to stay all
non-settlement proceedings in the action until July 29, 2021,
pending finalization and execution of a long form settlement
agreement, which was granted on June 17, 2021. Over the following
weeks, the Parties have worked diligently to negotiate the finer
points of a comprehensive settlement of the action.
On July 30, 2021, the Parties executed a settlement agreement to
resolve the claims in the action on a classwide basis. The
Plaintiffs intend to file a motion for preliminary approval of the
proposed Settlement promptly (within one business day) on receipt
of the Court's order on the stipulation.
The documents the Plaintiffs intend to file comprising preliminary
approval are attached as Exhibits A - F, with Exhibit A being the
Notice of Motion and Motion; Exhibit B being the Memorandum of
Points and Authorities in Support of the Motion; Exhibit C being
the Declaration of Shawn M. Kennedy, with exhibits; Exhibit D being
the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot, with exhibits; Exhibit E being
the Declaration of the Honorable Jay C. Gandhi (Ret.); and Exhibit
F being the Proposed Order Granting Preliminary Approval of
Settlement.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-4(b), the Plaintiffs' memorandum in
support of their motion for preliminary settlement approval may not
exceed 25 pages unless the Court orders otherwise. The Interim
Class and Co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel have concluded that up to 40
pages will be required to fully address the requirements for the
propriety of eventual certification of the settlement class and
preliminary approval under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and
the District's Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements,
and Plaid does not oppose an expansion of the page limits for the
Plaintiffs' memorandum in support of their motion for preliminary
approval.
Therefore, the Parties, through their respective counsel and
subject to the Court's approval, stipulated that:
1. The page limit for the memorandum in support of the
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary settlement approval is extended
to 40 pages.
2. The Plaintiffs are ordered to file the documents attached
as Exhibits A-F.
3. The Case Management Conference set for Aug. 18, 2021 is
taken off calendar, and the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval is set for Aug. 26, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. in Oakland, -
Videoconference only.
Pursuant to the Parties' stipulation, Judge Ryu so ordered as
modified. The Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval is set
for Sept. 30, 2021, instead of Aug. 26, 2021, at 1:30 p.m.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/dws77t6h from Leagle.com.
HERRERA KENNEDY LLP Shawn M. Kennedy -- sean.kennedy@lls.edu -- in
Newport Beach, California.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP Rachel Geman, (Pro Hac
Vice), in New York City.
BURNS CHAREST LLP Christopher J. Cormier --
ccormier@burnscharest.com -- (Pro Hac Vice), in Washington, D.C.,
Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel
COOLEY LLP Michael G. Rhodes -- rhodesmg@cooley.com -- Whitty
Somvichian -- rhodesmg@cooley.com -- Kyle C. Wong --
rhodesmg@cooley.com -- Ellie Barczak -- ebarczak@cooley.com --
Cameron J. Clark -- ebarczak@cooley.com -- in San Francisco,
California, Attorneys for Defendant PLAID INC.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Sturdivant Files FDCPA Suit in North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Arnetta Sturdivant,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00645
(M.D.N.C., Aug. 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
PRA Group, Inc. or PRA -- https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- is
a debt buyer and debt collector based in Norfolk, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arthur H. Piervincenti, Esq.
PIERVINCENTI & TARANTINO LAW PLLC
Terrell, NC 28682
Phone: (704) 360-8181
Fax: (704) 380-9444
Email: arthur@ptlawpllc.com
PPL CORP: Continues to Defend Cane Run Plant-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
PPL Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend lawsuits relating to the operations of Cane Run plant.
In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against
Louisville Gas and Electric Company (LG&E) and PPL in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky (U.S. District
Court) alleging violations of the Clean Air Act, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), and common law claims
of nuisance, trespass and negligence.
In July 2014, the U.S. District Court dismissed the RCRA claims and
all but one Clean Air Act claim, but declined to dismiss the common
law tort claims.
In February 2017, the U.S. District Court dismissed PPL as a
defendant and dismissed the final federal claim against LG&E, and
in April 2017, issued an Order declining to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction on the state law claims dismissing the case in its
entirety.
In June 2017, the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in
Jefferson County, Kentucky Circuit Court, against LG&E alleging
state law nuisance, negligence and trespass tort claims.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for alleged
property damage due to purported plant emissions on behalf of a
class of residents within one to three miles of the plant.
On January 8, 2020, the Jefferson Circuit Court issued an order
denying the plaintiffs' request for class certification. On January
14, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Kentucky
Court of Appeals.
On December 11, 2020, the Court of Appeals issued an order
affirming the lower court's denial of class certification.
In December 2020, plaintiffs filed a petition for discretionary
review with the Kentucky Supreme Court. On April 20, 2021, the
Kentucky Supreme Court denied further review of the lower court
order.
The case will be remanded to the Jefferson Circuit Court for the
claims of the three remaining petitioners to be heard on an
individual basis.
PPL and LG&E cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the remaining
proceedings, but do not anticipate this matter will have a
significant impact on operations or financial condition.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
PPL Corporation, a utility company, delivers electricity and
natural gas in the United States and the United Kingdom. The
Company operates in three segments: U.K. Regulated, Kentucky
Regulated, and Pennsylvania Regulated. It was founded in 1920 and
is headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
PRYCO MOVERS: Lugo Suit Seeks Unpaid OT for Warehouse Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL LUGO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRYCO MOVERS INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:21-cv-01346 (M.D. Fla., August 18, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a warehouse
employee, mover, and driver from December 16, 2020 to July 31,
2021.
Pryco Movers Inc. is a moving and storage company located at 2221
Forsyth Rd., Unit 1C, Orlando, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
PTC INC: Khan Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTAL M. KHAN, MICHELLE
R. BALLINGER, and GEORGE A. CRAAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. PTC INC, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF PTC INC., THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF PTC INC., and JOHN DOES
1-30, Case No. 1:20-cv-11710-WGY (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:
1. certifying this action as a class action;
"All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family
members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
the PTC 401(k) Savings Plan, at any time between September
17, 2014 through the date of judgment (the "Class
Period");"
2. appointing them as representatives of the proposed class
defined; and
3. appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the
Class.
PTC Inc. is an American computer software and services company
founded in 1985 and headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Aug. 16,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3z7I1gh
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
Gabrielle Kelerchian, Esq.
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
gabriellek@capozziadler.com
donr@capozziadler.com
RADIUS GLOBAL: Bernard Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters
-------------------------------------------------------------
DARIO BERNARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-03605 (E.D. Penn., August 12, 2021) is a class
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to the First Premier
Bank.
According to the complaint, the First Premier Bank contracted with
the Defendant to collect the Plaintiff's alleged debt. Subsequently
on August 13, 2020, the Defendant sent a collection letter to the
Plaintiff requiring him to make a payment within 45 days from the
date of the letter. However, the letter failed to include a
reconciling statement, and failed to explain what would happen to
the expiration date to make the settlement payment. By this
failure, the Defendant violated the FDCPA as it overshadows and
renders the Validation Notice ineffective. The deceptive
communication additionally violated the FDCPA since it frustrated
the Plaintiff's ability to intelligently choose his response, says
the suit.
Radius Global Solutions, LLC is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. COCCO, P.C.
1500 Walnut Street, Suite 900
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Tel: (215) 351-0200
Fax: (215) 261-6055
RAMCO PROTECTIVE: Fails to Pay Welders' Overtime, Rodriguez Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RAMCO PROTECTIVE OF ORLANDO, INC., D/B/A
RAMCO PROTECTIVE, SAM NEGRI, and COREY NEGRI, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-00616-JLB-MRM (M.D. Fla., August 18, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a welder and
installer of security gates and other security equipment in Lee
County, Florida from August 01, 2019 to July 30, 2021.
Ramco Protective of Orlando, Inc., doing business as Ramco
Protective, is a provider of security and surveillance equipment
and services, with its principal place of business in Lee County,
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
RATER8 LLC: Wilson Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert Wilson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Rater8, LLC, Doe Defendants 1 through
100, Case No. 37-02021-00026905-CU-BT-CTL was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on August
19, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-01476-BEN-RBB to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Rater8 -- https://rater8.com/ -- is the leader in healthcare
reputation management.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick N. Keegan, Esq.
KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP
2292 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (760) 929-9303
Fax: (760) 929-9260
Email: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Adam B. Korn, Esq.
MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY & POPEO, PC
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 586-3200
Fax: (310) 586-3202
Email: abkorn@mintz.com
RCI HOSPITALITY: Trial in Texas Class Suit Set for Jan. 9, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------
RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court in the
consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re RCI
Hospitality Holdings, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-01841, has set January 9,
2023 as the trial date.
In May and June 2019, three putative securities class action
complaints were filed against RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. and
certain of its officers in the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division.
The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
based on alleged materially false and misleading statements made in
the Company's SEC filings and disclosures as they relate to various
alleged transactions by the Company and management.
The complaints seek unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys'
fees.
These lawsuits are Hoffman v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et
al. (filed May 21, 2019, naming the Company and Eric Langan); Gu v.
RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed May 28, 2019, naming
the Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall (who is no longer an
officer of the Company)); and Grossman v. RCI Hospitality Holdings,
Inc., et al. (filed June 28, 2019, naming the Company, Eric Langan,
and Phil Marshall). The plaintiffs in all three cases moved to
consolidate the purported class actions.
On January 10, 2020 an order consolidating the Hoffman, Grossman,
and Gu cases was entered by the Court. The consolidated case is
styled In re RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-01841.
On February 24, 2020, the plaintiffs in the consolidated case filed
an Amended Class Action Complaint, continuing to allege violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
In addition to naming the Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall,
the amended complaint also adds director Nourdean Anakar and former
director Steven Jenkins as defendants.
On April 24, 2020, the Company and the individual defendants moved
to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. On March 31, 2021, the court denied
defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
On April 14, 2021, defendants filed their answer and affirmative
defenses, denying liability as to all claims.
On June 14, 2021, a scheduling order was entered in the case,
setting January 9, 2023 as the trial date.
The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this
action. This action is in its preliminary phase, and a potential
loss cannot yet be estimated.
RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates night clubs offering adult entertainment, restaurants, and
bar operations in Texas and other locations in the United States.
The Company, through its subsidiaries, also owns and operates media
and websites related to their operations. The company is based in
Houston, Texas.
REACTION PROPERTIES: Charman Sues Over Unsolicited Voice Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THANE CHARMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REACTION PROPERTIES INC. d/b/a BLITZ
MORTGAGE; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-01438-JLS-BGS (S.D. Cal., August 12, 2021) brings this
class action complaint against the Defendants for their alleged
negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant placed prerecorded
messages on his cellular telephone (619) 300-1119 beginning on or
around April 7, 2021 in an effort to sell or solicit its services.
The Defendant purportedly used an "automatic telephone dialing
system" (ATDS) in placing its daily calls to the Plaintiff's
cellular phone without obtaining the Plaintiff's "prior express
consent" to receive such calls using an ATDS or an artificial or
prerecorded voice.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals were harmed by the Defendants' unsolicited
prerecorded messages which caused them to incur certain charges or
reduced telephone tie for which they had previously paid, and
invaded their privacy. Thus, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks damages and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful conduct.
Reaction Properties Inc. d/b/a Blitz Mortgage is a mortgage loan
company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
RENO, NE: Castellanos Loses Bid to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE CASTELLANOS, et
al., v. CITY OF RENO, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00693-MMD-CLB (D.
Nev.), the Hon. Judge Miranda M. Du enters an order:
1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class; and
2. granting the Plaintiffs leave to file a renewed motion
within 30 days as to the 18-21 Year Old Patron Class only.
The motion must establish that the class meets the numerosity
requirement. If the Plaintiffs do not file a renewed motion, they
may proceed with their claims individually, says Judge Du.
Reno is a city in the northwest section of the U.S. state of
Nevada, along the Nevada-California border.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y28VoN at no extra charge.[CC]
ROPER TECHNOLOGIES: Mulvey Putative Class Suit vs. Unit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that Vertafore, Inc., a
company subsidiary, continues to defend a putative class action
suit entitled, Mulvey, et al. v. Vertafore, Inc., Case
3:21-cv-00213-E, filed January 31, 2021
Roper's subsidiary, Vertafore, Inc., was named in three putative
class actions, two in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas (Allen, et al. v. Vertafore, Inc., Case
4:20-cv-4139, filed December 4, 2020 and Masciotra, et al. v.
Vertafore, Inc., originally filed on December 8, 2020 as Case
1:20-cv-03603 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado and subsequently transferred), and one in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Mulvey, et al.
v. Vertafore, Inc., Case 3:21-cv-00213-E, filed January 31, 2021).
In July 2021, the court granted Vertafore's motion to dismiss the
Allend Case. Plantiff has the right to appeal the dismissal of the
case.
In July 2021, the plaintiff in the Masciotra case voluntarily
dismissed his action without prejudice.
The one remaining case purports to represent approximately 27.7
million individuals who held Texas driver's licenses prior to
February 2019.
In November 2020, Vertafore announced that as a result of human
error, three data files were inadvertently stored in an unsecured
external storage service that appears to have been accessed without
authorization.
The files, which included driver information for licenses issued
before February 2019, contained Texas driver license numbers, as
well as names, dates of birth, addresses and vehicle registration
histories.
The files did not contain any Social Security numbers or financial
account information.
The case seeks recovery under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act,
18 U.S.C. Section 2721. Vertafore is vigorously defending the case.
In addition, Roper has been advised that the Texas Attorney General
is investigating the data event.
Roper Technologies, Inc., is an American diversified industrial
company that produces engineered products for global niche markets.
The company is headquartered in Sarasota, Florida.
RV SKINCARE: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RV Skincare LLC. The
case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. RV Skincare LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-06973 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
RV Skincare LLC doing business as Revive Skincare --
https://reviveskincare.com/ -- is a manufacturer and supplier of
cosmetic, skincare and beauty care products such as cleansers,
toners, moisturizers and serums.[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
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Court Issues Show Cause Order in Fox Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS A. FOX, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF SAGINAW, by its BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-11887 (E.D.
Mich.), Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division, granted the
Plaintiff's Emergency Motions to Lift the Stay, to Enter a Show
Cause Order, and for Expedited Consideration.
On June 25, 2019, Plaintiff Fox filed a complaint on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated against numerous Michigan
counties and county treasurers. He claims that the Defendants have
seized and disposed of property and retained the surplus equity
pursuant to Michigan's General Property Tax Act ("GPTA"), Mich.
Comp. Laws Section 211.1, et seq. Before recent amendments, the
GPTA allowed the statutorily defined "foreclosing governmental
unit" to retain the surplus proceeds of a tax foreclosure sale
without any procedure for compensating the owner.
The Plaintiff's original complaint alleged a taking without just
compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
(Counts I, II), inverse condemnation under Michigan law (Count
III), violation of Article X, Section 2 of the Michigan
Constitution (Count IV), and an excessive fine in violation of the
Eighth Amendment (Count V).
On Sept. 4, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming
additional counties and treasurers as the Defendants and adding
three counts: procedural due process (Count VI), substantive due
process (Count VII), and unjust enrichment (Count VIII). After the
Amended Complaint, the roster of Defendants includes Counties
Alcona, Alpena, Arenac, Bay, Clare, Crawford, Genesee, Gladwin,
Gratiot, Huron, Isabella, Jackson, Lapeer, Lenawee, Macomb,
Midland, Montmorency, Ogemaw, Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Isle,
Roscommon, Saginaw, Sanilac, St. Clair, Tuscola, and Washtenaw, and
county treasurers Cheryl Franks, Kimberly Ludlow, Dennis Stawowy,
Richard F. Brzezinski, Jenny Beemer-Fritzinger, Kate M. Wagner,
Joseph V. Wakeley, Deborah Cherry, Christy Van Tiem, Michelle
Thomas, Debra McCollum, Steven W. Pickens, Karen Coffman, Dana M.
Miller, Marilyn J. Woods, Lawrence Rocca, Cathy Lunsford, Jean M.
Klein, Dwight McIntyre, William Kendall, Diann Axford, Bridget
Lalonde, Rebecca Ragan, Timothy M. Novak, Trudy Nicol, Kelly
Roberts-Burnett, Patricia Donovan-Gray, Catherine McClary, and
Shawn S. Walraven.
On Jan. 10, 2020, the case was stayed pending the Sixth Circuit's
decision in Freed v. Thomas, No. 18-2312 (6th Cir. 2020), which
presented nearly identical facts, substantive arguments, and
jurisdictional questions.
On Oct. 16, 2020, shortly after the Sixth Circuit's decision in
Freed, the stay was lifted and the following class was certified:
"All persons and entities that owned real property in the following
counties, whose real property, during the relevant time period, was
seized through a real property tax foreclosure, which was worth
and/or which was sold at tax auction for more than the total tax
delinquency and were not refunded the value of the property in
excess of the delinquent taxes owed: Alcona, Alpena, Arenac, Bay,
Clare, Crawford, Genesee, Gladwin, Gratiot, Huron, Isabella,
Jackson, Lapeer, Lenawee, Macomb, Midland, Montmorency, Ogemaw,
Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Isle, Roscommon, Saginaw, Sanilac, St
Clair, Tuscola, and Washtenaw.
Plaintiff Thomas A. Fox was appointed class representative, and Mr.
E. Powell Miller of The Miller Law Firm PC and Mr. Phillip L.
Ellison of Outside Legal Counsel PLC were appointed class counsel.
On Jan. 13, 2021, the Court decided several motions to dismiss
filed by the Fox Defendants. Among the various defenses raised
there was the assertion that the County Defendants were immune from
suit because the GPTA specified how the "foreclosing governmental
unit" was to handle the proceeds of a tax foreclosure sale.
Accordingly, the County Defendants argued that in retaining surplus
proceeds under the GPTA, they were acting as an "arm of the
State."
The Court rejected the County Defendants' argument because
regardless of how proceeds were handled under the GPTA, the County
Defendants voluntarily elected to serve as the foreclosing
governmental unit. Nonetheless, the individual county treasurers
were dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity, and several
federal and state law claims against the County Defendants were
dismissed for failure to state a claim. The remaining claims, which
alleged a taking without just compensation, inverse condemnation,
violation of due process, and unjust enrichment, were allowed to
proceed against the County Defendants.
On Feb. 1, 2021, the County Defendants filed a timely notice of
appeal from this Court's denial of sovereign immunity. That appeal
remains pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit.
Shortly after the County Defendants' notice of appeal was filed,
the Plaintiff filed a preemptive motion to continue the proceedings
during the appeal. The County Defendants responded with a motion to
stay. Both motions were fully briefed by the parties. Given the
"serious questions" surrounding the sovereign immunity defense, the
County Defendants' Motion to Stay was granted on March 9, 2021. The
case remains stayed pending the disposition of the County
Defendants' appeal.
The matter is before the Court pursuant to the Plaintiff's
Emergency Motions to Lift the Stay, to Enter a Show Cause Order,
and for Expedited Consideration. In the pending Motions, the
Plaintiff claims that a non-party entity, Choice Plus LLC, is
improperly soliciting members of the Class.
Judge Ludington finds that the personal declaration of Mr. Gronda
and other evidence provided with the Emergency Motions suggest that
Choice Plus is or has been targeting Class Members with
solicitations that encourage them to pursue individual relief in
state court. Such activity interferes with the proper
administration of the Class and would seem contrary to the "text
and purpose of Rule 23." Therefore, the Plaintiff's Emergency
Motions will be granted, the stay will be lifted for the limited
purpose of conducting show cause proceedings, and Choice Plus will
be directed to show cause in the manner outlined in the Order.
Accordingly, Judge Ludington granted the Plaintiff's Emergency
Motions. The stay is lifted for the limited purpose of conducting
show cause proceedings regarding non-party Choice Plus' apparent
solicitation of Class Members. The Plaintiff is directed to serve
Andrew Black, the counsel for Choice Plus, with a copy of the Order
by first class mail and to file a certificate of service on the
docket.
Non-party Choice Plus is directed to appear and show cause, in
writing, on Aug. 26, 2021, or 21 days after being served with a
copy of the Order, whichever is later, why an order should not be
entered: (1) enjoining Choice Plus from soliciting Class Members
for legal representation or any other purpose; (2) rescinding or
invalidating all contracts between Choice Plus and any Class
Member; and (3) disqualifying Choice Plus from any representation
or providing any services in this District and the State of
Michigan relating to the recovery of surplus proceeds and/or equity
following tax foreclosure within this District and the State of
Michigan.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/tzptw5aw from Leagle.com.
SALEM PLACE: Improperly Pays Nurses, Smith Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA SMITH and DENNA HENDRIX, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SALEM PLACE NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00733-KGB
(E.D. Ark., August 18, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs
and similarly situated nurses overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Plaintiffs Smith and Hendrix were employed by the Defendant as
nurses from July 2020 to February 2021 and from February 2020 to
February 2021, respectively.
Salem Place Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Inc. is a company
that owns and operates a nursing and rehabilitation facility in
Conway, Arkansas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Westerkamp Sues Over Earbuds' Allergic Effect
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHERYL WESTERKAMP, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-15639 (D.N.J., August 18, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and
violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's design, manufacturing,
marketing, and sale of defective Galaxy Buds Pro headphones or
earbuds. The earbuds are made out of a material that causes an
allergic and/or inflammatory reaction in individuals that use the
product. The defect generally causes the user of the earbuds to
suffer, among other things, itching, burning, redness, blistering,
flaking, scabbing and/or fluid leaking from the ear. As a result of
the Defendant's alleged misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members
have suffered harm. They would not have bought the earbuds had they
known the truth, added the suit.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is a manufacturer of electronic
products based in New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq.
MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 228-9898
Facsimile: (973) 228-0303
SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Norcia Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL NORCIA, on his own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AMERICA, LLC, a New York Corporation, and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC., a New Jersey Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
3:14-cv-582-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James Donato of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California enters final judgment
of dismissal with prejudice.
The Judge dismisses the class action against Samsung on the merits
and with prejudice, without fees or costs to any party except as
provided for in the Settlement Agreement and the Court's final
approval order, as well as in any other fees and costs orders that
may be issued in the future by the Court.
The Releases in the Settlement Agreement will become effective as
of the Effective Date, and will discharge the Releasees from the
Released Claims. The Settlement Agreement is binding on, and will
have res judicata and preclusive effect in all pending and future
lawsuits or other proceedings maintained by or on behalf of
Releasors and the Releasees with respect to the Released Claims.
All Class Members who were not excluded by the final approval order
are permanently barred and enjoined from filing, intervening, or
participating in any lawsuit or other action in any jurisdiction
based on the Released Claims.
Judgment is entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
Without affecting the finality of the Judgment, the Court retains
jurisdiction on all matters relating to administration,
consummation, implementation, enforcement, and interpretation of
the Settlement Agreement and the Judgment, and for any other
necessary purpose.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 6, 2021 Final Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc7n8dzp from Leagle.com.
SECURIAN FINANCIAL: Court Tosses Ciofoletti Bid to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eleanor Ciofoletti, Rocco
Ciofoletti, and Larry Stospal, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. Securian Financial Group, Inc.,
Minnesota Life Insurance Company, Securian Life Insurance Company,
Shurwest, LLC, and Minnesota Mutual Companies, Inc., Case No.
0:18-cv-03025-JNE-ECW (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Joan N. Ericksen
enters an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have sued the Securian Defendants,
and Shurwest to recover the losses they suffered when FIP
collapsed. Now, they seek class certification under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) on their breach of fiduciary duty claim
against the Securian Defendants and on their aiding and abetting
claim against Shurwest. Because the individualized inquiries
required to determine whether the Securian Defendants owed the
class members a fiduciary duty will predominate over the common
questions presented, Plaintiffs' motion is denied."
The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of individuals who
invested in an alleged Ponzi scheme operated by Future Income
Payments, LLC ("FIP"). These investments were used to finance the
purchase of life insurance policies sold and marketed by
Defendants. The proposed class members made these transactions
through their financial advisors, who were agents authorized to
sell life insurance from Minnesota Life Insurance Company.
Shurwest, LLC was contracted by Minnesota Life to market these
insurance policies and to provide training to the insurance
brokers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ml0KBD at no extra charge.[CC]
SHOWS CALI & WALSH: Napoleon Seeks Certification of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES NAPOLEON v. SHOWS,
CALI & WALSH, LLP, a Louisiana limited liability partnership; MARY
CATHERINE CALI, an individual; and JOHN C WALSH, an individual,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01775-ILRL-KWR (E.D. La.), Plaintiff Napoleon asks
the Court to enter an order certifying this case to proceed as a
class action defined as a class of Louisiana persons who:
a. Received a Road Home Elevation Grant for personal, family,
or household purposes;
b. Whom Defendants sued within one year prior to the filing
of this lawsuit; and
c. Which lawsuit was filed more than 6 years after the
consumer's contract deadline to provide proof of
elevation:
On June 21, 2020, this litigation was filed as a class action
alleging that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), had
been violated.
On February 1, 2021, the First Amended Complaint was filed. The
Plaintiff alleges that it was the policy and practice of Defendants
to file collection lawsuits to recover the State of Louisiana
Division of Administration Office of Community Development’s
(OCD) Elevation Incentive grant more than 6 years after the end of
the 3-year compliance period.
Shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P. provides legal counsel throughout
Louisiana.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 12,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/380IW6i
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOCIATES
25 East Washington Street, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 372-8822
E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com
- and -
Keren E. Gesund, Esq.
GESUND AND PAILET, LLC
3421 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 805
Metairie, LA 70002
Telephone: (504) 836-2888
Facsimile: (504) 265-9492
E-mail: keren@gp-nola.com
SIG SAUER: Ortiz Seeks to Certify Classes
-----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERICK ORTIZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SIG SAUER, INC.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01025-JL (D.N.H.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying the following classes:
-- Nationwide Class
"All persons in the United States who purchased a SIG
P320 semi-automatic pistol, regardless of size, at any
time prior to August 8, 2017;" or in the alternative,
-- Multistate Fraudulent Omission Subclass:
"All persons in Arizona, Idaho, Maryland, Mississippi,
Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Washington
who purchased a SIG P320 semi-automatic pistol,
regardless of size, at any time prior to August 8,
2017;" and
-- Multistate Unjust Enrichment Subclass:
"All persons in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,
Nebraska, Pennsylvania and Utah who purchased a SIG
P320 semi-automatic pistol, regardless of size, at any
time prior to August 8, 2017."
2. appointing Derick Ortiz as representative of the
Nationwide Class, representative of the Multistate
Fraudulent Omission Subclass and representative of the
Multistate Unjust Enrichment Subclass; and
3. appoint Plaintiff's counsel, Bursor & Fisher, P.A. and
Douglas, Leonard & Garvey, P.C., as Class Counsel.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 13,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3D24PRj
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-Mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
jarisohn@bursor.com
ndeckant@bursor.com
- and -
Charles G. Douglas, III, Esq.
Benjamin T. King, Esq.
DOUGLAS, LEONARD & GARVEY, P.C.
14 South Street, Suite 5
Concord, NH 03301
Telephone: (603) 224-1988
E-Mail: chuck@nhlawoffice.com
benjamin@nhlawoffice.com
SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Borges FTSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALEJANDRO BORGES, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, LLC, Case No.
2021-017561-CA-01, was removed from the Circuit Court for the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on August
18, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-23011-MGC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act by sending telephonic sales
calls to solicit the sale of consumer goods and/or services using
an automatic telephone dialing system without express written
consent.
SmileDirectClub, LLC is a company that designs and manufactures
dental equipment, headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jordan S. Kosches, Esq.
GRAYROBINSON, P.A.
333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 3200
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 416-6880
Facsimile: (305) 416-6997
E-mail: jordan.kosches@gray-robinson.com
- and –
David S. Almeida, Esq.
Mark S. Eisen, Esq.
BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
71 South Wacker Drive, Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 212-4949
Facsimile: (312) 767-9192
E-mail: dalmeida@beneschlaw.com
meisen@beneschlaw.com
SNAP INC: Bride Consumer Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled THE ESTATE OF CARSON BRIDE by and through his
appointed administrator, Kristin Bride, and TYLER CLEMENTI
FOUNDATION, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. SNAP, INC., YOLO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., LIGHTSPACE, INC.,
and DOES #1-10, Case No. 3:21-cv-03473, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
August 18, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-06680-JVS-MRW to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged strict liability,
negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent representation,
unjust enrichment, injunctive relief, and violations of the Oregon
Unlawful Trade Practices Act, the New York General Business Law,
and the California Business and Professions Code for creating,
maintaining, and distributing anonymous messaging apps to teens
that are inherently dangerous and defective, and for falsely
promising the enforcement of safeguards.
Snap, Inc. is a mobile application developer with its principal
place of business in Santa Monica, California.
Yolo Technologies, Inc. is a mobile application developer with its
principal place of business in Los Angeles, California.
LightSpace, Inc. is a mobile application developer with its
principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Juyoun Han, Esq.
Eric Baum, Esq.
EISENBERG & BAUM, LLP
24 Union Square East, PH
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 353-8700
Facsimile: (212) 353-1708
E-mail: jhan@eandblaw.com
ebaum@eandblaw.com
- and –
John K. Buche, Esq.
BUCHE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
875 Prospect St., Suite 305
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 459-9111
Facsimile: (858) 430-2426
E-mail: jbuche@buchelaw.com
SSP INC: Parry Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SSP Inc. The case is
styled as John Parry, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SSP Inc., Case No. 5:21-cv-01391 (C.D. Cal.,
Aug. 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
SSP -- https://www.sspinc.com/ -- applies its knowledge of silicone
chemistry to help solve sealing and insulation challenges.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN STIEGLITZ
11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (323) 979-2063
Fax: (323) 488-6748
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
STRATEGIC CONTRACT: Vinson Sues Over HSE Specialists' Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JIMMY VINSON, individually and for others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STRATEGIC CONTRACT RESOURCES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00216 (S.D. Tex., August 16, 2021)
arises from the Defendant's alleged illegal pay practices that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a health, safety, and
environment (HSE) specialist from June 2015 until April 2019.
The Plaintiff alleges that despite regularly working more than 40
hours in a week, the Defendant did not pay him overtime at the rate
of one and one-half times is regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 in a single workweek. Instead of receiving
overtime pay at the federally mandate overtime rate, he only
received a rate slightly higher than his straight time rate for
overtime hours worked, the Plaintiff added.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action against
the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime and an equal amount as
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and judgement
interest, and other relief as may be necessary and appropriate.
Strategic Contract Resources, LLC is an international supplier of
personnel to the Oil & Gas, Petrochemical, Power, LNG, and
renewable energy industries. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com
mjosephson@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
SUN PACIFIC: Velasco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sun Pacific Farming
Cooperative, Inc. The case is styled as Martin Velasco, Baltazar
Lopez, as individuals, on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated v. Sun Pacific Farming Cooperative, Inc., Case No.
BCV-21-101897 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Aug. 18, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Sun Pacific Farming Cooperative, Inc. -- https://sunpacific.com/ --
produces and supplies fruit. The Company offers orages, tomatoes,
grapes, clementines, kiwi, and tree fruits.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mario G. Martinez, Esq.
MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO & LYNCH, APLC
PO Box 1998
Bakersfield, CA 93303-1998
Phone: 661-859-1174
Fax: 661-840-6154
Email: mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com
TARGET CORPORATION: Initial OK of Class Action Settlement Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SERGIO GARCIA, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TARGET
CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-01249-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order:
1. granting preliminary approval of the class action
settlement;
2. conditionally certifying a settlement class consisting of:
"All persons who are or were employed by Target in the
State of California as an Executive Team Leader ("ETL")
from April 17, 2015, to December 3, 2018;"
The Class does not include any individuals who already
have resolved the claims asserted in the Action, whether
by settlement or adjudication.
3. appointing the plaintiff Sergio Garcia as Class
Representative.
4. appointing James R. Hawkins and Isandra Y. Fernandez of
James Hawkins APLC as Class Counsel.
5. appointing Simpluris as Settlement Administrator;
6. approving of the forms of Notice of Proposed Class Action
Settlement and Final Approval Hearing
7. setting the final approval hearing for February 17, 2022,
at 2:00 p.m., to determine whether the Settlement should
be granted final approval as fair, reasonable, and
adequate as to the Class Members.
Target Corporation is an American retail corporation. The
eighth-largest retailer in the United States,
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 9, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3geo7sz at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
isandra@jameshawkinsaplc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Sergio Garcia, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq.
Eric D. Distelburger, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
101 California Street, 48th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 856-7000
Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com
ericdistelburger@paulhastings.com
TITLEMAX OF NEW MEXICO: Court Strikes 2nd Amended Romero Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESSE ROMERO, Plaintiff v. TITLEMAX OF NEW MEXICO,
INC., Defendant, Case No. CV 17-00775 KG/SCY (D.N.M.), Judge
Kenneth J. Gonzales of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Mexico strikes the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.
In the initial Complaint filed in New Mexico state court, the
Plaintiff alleged statutory claims under New Mexico's Unfair
Practices Act, NMSA 1978, Section 57-12-10 et seq (UPA) and common
law claims of procedural and substantive unconscionability against
Defendants TitleMax of New Mexico, Inc., TMX Finance, LLC, Tracy
Young, and Juan Trevizo.
For each alleged claim, the Plaintiff sought certification of a
class "consisting of all New Mexico citizens who have taken out a
loan from Defendants since March 11, 2013."
The Defendants removed the case to federal court, declaring subject
matter jurisdiction under the federal Class Action Fairness Act, 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d) (CAFA). On Aug. 25, 2017, the Plaintiff
filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC), which also asserted subject
matter jurisdiction under CAFA.
The Order Setting Case Management Deadlines and Discovery
Parameters ("Order") gave the Plaintiff a deadline of Oct. 8, 20202
to add additional parties and/or to amend the pleadings. But the
Order also cautioned the Plaintiff that (1) if he sought to amend
the pleadings after Oct. 8, 2020, he must demonstrate good cause
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 16(b) and (2) any
requested amendments must comply with the requirements of Rule
15(a).
On Oct. 15, 2020, one week after the Order's Oct. 8, 2020 amendment
deadline, the Plaintiff filed the SAC. The SAC alleged the
Plaintiff's claims individually and eliminated the Plaintiff's
previous request to certify a class. For the most part, the
statutory and common law claims in the SAC remained the same as
those delineated in the FAC. The SAC also dropped all claims
against Defendants TMC Finance, LLC, and Tracy Young. According to
the Plaintiff, the Court now has subject matter jurisdiction under
state law, more specifically, the UPA.
Judge Gonzales holds that the Plaintiff's SAC did not comply with
rules governing amendment of pleadings. The Plaintiff neither filed
a motion with the Court seeking an extension of the amendment
deadline for good cause as required by Rule 16(b) nor did he obtain
Defendant's leave or ask the Court for leave to amend under Rule
15(a). Accordingly, he strikes the Plaintiff's SAC for the reasons
described in his Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4vcmbc2y from Leagle.com.
TOTAL INSURANCE: Conditional Status of Collective Action
Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARITA MIDDLETON,
individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v.
TOTAL INSURANCE BROKERS LLC, Case No.
8:21-cv-1259-T-KKM-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:
A. recognizing this matter as a
collective action under
section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standars Act (FLSA) and
conditionally certifying the
following class as similarly
situated to Plaintiff:
"All persons who are currently
or formerly employed with
Total Insurance Brokers LLC
within a period of 3 years
preceding the filing of this
complaint and who worked as
Medicare Insurance Sales Agents,
or Sales Agents remotely
or at the physical corporate
office in Tampa Florida or
who were hired from and
reported to the Corporate office
located in Tampa, Florida;"
B. requiring Defendant within 14 days
to produce the names,
addresses, telephone numbers, last
four SS #’s, and email
addresses of all current and
former Sales Agents who were
employed by the Defendant within
the past three years from
the date of the Order
approving this Motion; and
C. approving the Plaintiff and her
counsel to deliver the
proposed Notice, Consent to Join
form, to be sent to all
similarly situated individuals via
email, US mail and by
text message and filed with
the court within 60 days of
dispatch of the
notice,including the issuance of
a
reminder notice to the class;
and
The Plaintiff Middleton filed this
collective action complaint against the
Defendant alleging that the Defendant
subjected its Sales Agents working
at, reporting to, or hired from
the Defendant's Tampa, Florida
office,to common unlawful pay
practices.
The Defendant managed, controlled and
directed the work of the
Plaintiff and Opt-in Plaintiffs, as
well as having created and
enforced its pay practices and
policies from it's corporate office
in Tampa, Florida.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class
dated Aug. 9, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3szszaE https://bit.ly/3szszaE at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Attorney for the Plaintiff and on
behalf of others similarly situated,
are:
Mitchell Feldman, Esq.
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
6916 W. Linebaugh Ave,
#101
Tampa, FL 33625
Telephone: (813) 639-9366
Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
E-mail:mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
TOWN OF JUPITER: Bernstein Seeks Certification of Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY BERNSTEIN, VINCENT
CURCIO, and JOHN ANGELONE, v. TOWN OF JUPITER, a municipal
Corporation, Case No. 9:21-cv-81215-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:
A. granting conditional certification of a Collective Action
under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, for
the proposed Putative Class defined as follows:
"All persons who are currently, or who were, employed by
the Town of Jupiter and/or the Jupiter Police Department
from June 2, 2018 to the present as any tier of law
enforcement officer or other similarly titled position,
either directly by Defendant or through any of its
subsidiaries or affiliated entities;"
B. appointing them, individually or as a whole, as
representative(s) of the Collective Action with authority
to appear at any mediation/settlement conference on behalf
of and to bind the Collective;
C. expediting production by the Defendant, within 10 days
from the entry of an Order from the Court, of a complete
list of each person -- including his/her last known home
address, cellular number, and e-mail address -- who worked
as law enforcement officer for Defendant at any time
between June 2, 2018 and the present;
D. requiring the Defendant to format and produce, on an
expedited basis, a list both in hard copy and
electronically in an Excel spreadsheet, of each such
person listed alphabetically, and with each person's last
known home address, cellular number, and e-mail addresses
in a separate field corresponding with each name to
facilitate the preparation and sending of notice;
E. permitting their counsel to send a Court-Approved Notice
by e-mail and by U.S. Mail to all such persons about their
rights to opt into this collective action by filing a
Consent to Join Lawsuit;
F. permitting their counsel to send a Court-Approved Reminder
Notice by e-mail and by U.S. Mail to all Putative Class
members; and
G. requiring the Defendant to post notice in any and all
break rooms for the entire notice period and to provide a
copy of the Court-Approved Notice to all Putative Class
members in the next paycheck / pay stub provided to
Defendant's current employees.
The Plaintiffs brought this collective action for themselves and
other similarly situated current and former employees of the
Defendant, to seek redress for the failure to properly pay them
proper overtime wages.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Aug. 13,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3j82xrT
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert C. Johnson, Esq.
Michael J. Pike, Esq.
PIKE & LUSTIG, LLP
1209 N. Olive Ave.
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 855-7585
Facsimile: (561) 855-7710
E-mail: pleadings@pikelustig.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Dismisses Hagopian's Claims With Leave to Amend
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HOVSEP HAGOPIAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. TOYOTA MOTOR
SALES, U.S.A., INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02248-ODW
(JDEx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Otis D. Wright of the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California grants Toyota's motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Mr. Hagopian initiated the putative class action based on his
allegations the 2019 Lexus LC is equipped with a defective brake
system that "generates an extremely loud squealing noise" when the
brakes are engaged.
Mr. Hagopian leased a 2019 Lexus LC, which is equipped with a
"high-friction" "high-performance" brake system. He claims the
Vehicle "contains one or more design and/or manufacturing defects,
including but not limited to defects contained in the brakes that
cause a loud squealing noise when the brakes are applied."
Based on these allegations, Hagopian asserts seven claims: (1)
breach of express warranty; (2) breach of implied warranty; (3)
breach of warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act;
(4) breach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; (5)
violations of California Business and Professions Code section
17200; (6) violations of California Business and Professions Code
section 17500; and (7) nuisance.
Defendants Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A, Inc., ("TMS"), and Toyota
Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. ("TEMA"),
collectively, ("Toyota") move to dismiss for failure to state a
claim.
Discussion
Mr. Hagopian claims that the high-performance brake system in the
Vehicle is defective. In its Motion to Dismiss, Toyota argues that
Hagopian's entire action revolves around one vague allegation --
the Vehicle "contains one or more design and/or manufacturing
defects that cause a loud squealing noise when the brakes are
applied." Toyota contends that Hagopian's FAC is deficient under
Rule 8(a)(2) because Hagopian fails to include facts regarding "any
specific design feature, component, mechanism, or function" that
renders the Vehicle defective.
Judge Wright holds that Hagopian's vague allegations fail to
sufficiently identify the components and systems involved and the
resulting symptoms of the purported defect. Hagopian repeatedly
alleges that the Vehicle "contains one or more design and/or
manufacturing defects, including but not limited to brakes that
cause a loud squealing noise when the brakes are applied." This
fails to sufficiently identify the component of the brake system
that is purportedly defective and merely alleges the effect of the
supposed defect (i.e., loud noise).
Moreover, Judge Wright finds that Hagopian's allegations that the
brake noise is a result of a defect is not plausible. In the FAC,
Hagopian acknowledges that Toyota's website contains a disclosure
stating "brake noise/squeal may result due to the inherent
characteristic of the materials and the design of the brake pads."
Thus, it is implausible that a known and disclosed characteristic
of the type of high-friction, high-performance brakes used in
Hagopian's Vehicle rendered the brake system defective. Therefore,
the Court finds that Hagopian's allegations fail to satisfy Rule
8(a)(2).
Conclusion
For the reasons he discussed, Judge Wright grants Toyota's Motion
and dismisses Hagopian's claims with leave to amend. If Hagopian
chooses to file a second amended complaint ("SAC"), he must do so
no later than 21 days from the date of the Order. If Hagopian files
a SAC, Toyota must file its response no later than 14 days from the
date of the SAC filing. Hagopian's failure to file a SAC will
convert the dismissal to one with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3c97m8c5 from Leagle.com.
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Sturdivant Files FDCPA Suit in M.D.N.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems
Inc. The case is styled as Arnetta Sturdivant, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Transworld Systems Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00644 (M.D.N.C., Aug. 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Transworld Systems Inc. -- https://tsico.com/ -- provides
receivables collection and management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arthur H. Piervincenti, Esq.
PIERVINCENTI & TARANTINO LAW PLLC
Terrell, NC 28682
Phone: (704) 360-8181
Fax: (704) 380-9444
Email: arthur@ptlawpllc.com
TRIPLE CANOPY: Butterfield Seeks to Certify Armed Personnel Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DE'SEAN BUTTERFIELD,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.
TRIPLE CANOPY, INC., and CONSTELLIS HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. Case
2:21-cv-03610-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
1. conditionally certify a class of:
"all armed personnel who are working or have performed
work at any federal facility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
in which they worked at least one workweek in excess of 40
hours, at any time since August 13, 2018, and were not
paid for pre or post shift work time (Security Guards or
the FLSA Class);
2. directing the Defendants to produce to Plaintiff's counsel
the names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and
email addresses of all potential members of the FLSA Class
within 10 days of the date of Order; further Order
Defendants to post notices in conspicuous locations at
each of their facilities where any member of the FLSA
Class works;
3. permitting the Plaintiff's counsel to issue notice to all
potential members of the FLSA Class by first-class mail,
text message, and email, informing them of their right to
opt in to this case;
4. allowing an opt-in period of 90 days, beginning from the
date of Plaintiff's first issuance of notice;
5. allowing Plaintiff to send reminder notices by first-class
mail, text message, and email to all potential members of
the FLSA Class who have not yet responded to notice within
45 days of the first issuance of notice; and
6. approving the Plaintiff's proposed form of notice, and
Plaintiff's proposed Opt-In Consent Form.
Triple Canopy is an American private security company that provides
integrated security, mission support and risk management services
to corporate, government and nonprofit clients.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 13,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gkSJZN
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the FLSA Class are:
James E. Goodley, Esq.
Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq.
GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC
1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 394-0541
E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com
ryan@gmlaborlaw.com
- and -
Franklin J. Rooks, Jr., Esq.
MORGAN ROOKS, PC
525 Route 73 North, Suite 104
Marlton, NJ 08053
Telephone: (856) 874-8999
E-mail: fjrooks@morganrooks.com
TRUSTMARK CORP: TNB Continues to Defend Suit Over Stanford Collapse
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that Trustmark National Bank
(TNB) continues to defend itself from a class action lawsuit
related to the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group.
On August 23, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the District Court of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain,
Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis
Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano (Class Plaintiffs), on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, naming TNB and four
other financial institutions and one individual, each of which are
unaffiliated with Trustmark, as defendants.
The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent transfers
from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and other monies
received by each defendant from entities controlled by R. Allen
Stanford (the Stanford Financial Group) and (ii) damages allegedly
attributable to alleged conspiracies by one or more of the
defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or
aid and abet fraud on the asserted grounds that defendants knew or
should have known the Stanford Financial Group was conducting an
illegal and fraudulent scheme.
Class Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial. Class Plaintiffs did
not quantify damages.
In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford-related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.
In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the lawsuit. In August 2010, the court authorized and
approved the formation of an Official Stanford Investors Committee
(OSIC) to represent the interests of Stanford investors and, under
certain circumstances, to file legal actions for the benefit of
Stanford investors.
In December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to intervene in this
action. In September 2012, the district court referred the case to
a magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain
pretrial issues. In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's
motion to intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint
against one of the other defendant financial institutions.
In February 2013, the OSIC filed a second Intervenor Complaint that
asserts claims against TNB and the remaining defendant financial
institutions.
The OSIC seeks to recover: (i) alleged fraudulent transfers in the
amount of the fees each of the defendants allegedly received from
Stanford Financial Group, the profits each of the defendants
allegedly made from Stanford Financial Group deposits, and other
monies each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford
Financial Group; (ii) damages attributable to alleged conspiracies
by each of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to
commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud and conversion on the
asserted grounds that the defendants knew or should have known the
Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent
scheme; and (iii) punitive damages. The OSIC did not quantify
damages.
In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the OSIC's claims. In March 2015, the court entered an
order authorizing the parties to conduct discovery regarding class
certification, staying all other discovery and setting a deadline
for the parties to complete briefing on class certification issues.
In April 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motions to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' claims and the
OSIC's claims. The court dismissed all of the Class Plaintiffs'
fraudulent transfer claims and dismissed certain of the OSIC's
claims.
The court denied the motions by TNB and the other financial
institution defendants to dismiss the OSIC's constructive
fraudulent transfer claims.
On June 23, 2015, the court allowed the Class Plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC), which asserted new
claims against TNB and certain of the other defendants for (i)
aiding, abetting and participating in a fraudulent scheme, (ii)
aiding, abetting and participating in violations of the Texas
Securities Act, (iii) aiding, abetting and participating in
breaches of fiduciary duty, (iv) aiding, abetting and participating
in conversion and (v) conspiracy.
On July 14, 2015, the defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the SAC and to reconsider the court's prior denial to
dismiss the OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer claims against
TNB and the other financial institutions that are defendants in the
action.
On July 27, 2016, the court denied the motion by TNB and the other
financial institution defendants to dismiss the SAC and also denied
the motion by TNB and the other financial institution defendants to
reconsider the court's prior denial to dismiss the OSIC's
constructive fraudulent transfer claims. On August 24, 2016, TNB
filed its answer to the SAC. On October 20, 2017, the OSIC filed a
motion seeking an order lifting the discovery stay and establishing
a trial schedule.
On November 4, 2016, the OSIC filed a First Amended Intervenor
Complaint, which added claims for (i) aiding, abetting or
participation in violations of the Texas Securities Act and (ii)
aiding, abetting or participation in the breach of fiduciary duty.
On November 7, 2017, the court denied the Class Plaintiffs' motion
seeking class certification and designation of class
representatives and counsel, finding that common issues of fact did
not predominate. The court granted the OSIC's motion to lift the
discovery stay that it had previously ordered.
On May 3, 2019, individual investors and entities filed motions to
intervene in the action. On September 18, 2019, the court denied
the motions to intervene. On October 14, 2019, certain of the
proposed intervenors filed a notice of appeal. On February 3, 2021,
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the
motions to intervene; this decision was affirmed by a panel of the
Fifth Circuit on March 12, 2021.
On February 12, 2021, all defendants (including TNB) filed a motion
for summary judgment with respect to OSIC claims that applied to
all defendants. In addition, on the same date, TNB filed a
separate motion for summary judgment with respect to aspects of
OSIC claims that applied specifically to TNB.
On March 19, 2021, OSIC filed notice with the court that it was
abandoning as against all of the defendants (including TNB) the
five claims described above.
As a result, only the claims for (i) aiding, abetting and
participating in breaches of fiduciary duty, (ii) aiding, abetting
and participating in violations of the Texas Securities Act, and
(iii) punitive damages remain as against TNB.
On March 19, 2021, OSIC also filed responses to defendants' motions
for summary judgment. Briefing on the defendants' (including
TNB's) summary judgment motions in respect of these remaining
claims continues.
The parties to the action have agreed that the case is to be tried
in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and it is
Trustmark's understanding that the judge of the District Court for
the Northern District of Texas to whom the case is currently
assigned has agreed to this transfer, but he has yet to formally
remand the case to the Southern District of Texas.
However, on March 25, 2021, the judge to whom the case is currently
assigned in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas
rescinded his previously-issued trial scheduling orders so that the
Southern District of Texas could set scheduling for this case once
the case has in fact been remanded.
Trustmark Corporation operates as the bank holding company for
Trustmark National Bank that provides banking and other financial
solutions to individuals and corporate institutions in the United
States. Trustmark Corporation was founded in 1889 and is
headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi.
TULARE COUNTY, CA: Criswell Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Charles Criswell, Levi
Johnson, Samuel Camposeco, Adam Ibarra, and California Attorneys
for Criminal Justice, v. Michael Boudreaux, in his official
capacity as Sheriff of Tulare County, Case No.
1:20-cv-01048-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. preliminarily approving the terms of the proposed class
action settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
2. conditionally certifying the proposed Settlement Class of
"all people who are currently incarcerated in the Tulare
County Jails or will be incarcerated in the Tulare County
Jails at any point before the Termination Date of the
Settlement Agreement";
3. appointing Plaintiffs Samuel Camposeco and Adam Ibarra as
class representatives;
4. appointing the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
of Northern California and Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP as
Class Counsel;
5. approving the Plaintiffs' plan to provide notice to class
members; and
6. setting the date and time for a final fairness hearing.
The Plaintiffs filed this class action lawsuit in late July 2020 on
behalf of incarcerated persons in the Tulare County Jails (Jails)
to address Defendant Sheriff Michael Boudreaux’s deliberate
indifference to the risk of COVID-19 and his alleged
unconstitutional attorney visitation policy.
The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant failed to prevent the
spread of COVID-19 in the Jails by failing to implement and indeed
obstructing adequate policies and practices like mask-wearing or
social distancing.
The Plaintiffs also alleged that Defendant’s attorney-visitation
policy, which restricted class counsel from meeting with current or
prospective clients, was unconstitutional. Plaintiffs filed a
Supplemental Complaint in March 2021 alleging Defendant had failed
to respond adequately to a COVID-19 outbreak in the Jails and had
imposed an unconstitutional lock-down policy in response to
COVID-19.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class dated August
10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3j1bvHe at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob S. Kreilkamp, Esq.
William D. Temko, Esq.
Lauren M. Harding, Esq.
Ariel Teshuva, Esq.
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue
Fiftieth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426
Telephone: (213) 683-9100
Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
E-mail: Jacob.Kreilkamp@mto.com
William.Temko@mto.com
Lauren.Harding@mto.com
Ariel.Teshuva@mto.com
- and -
Emilou Maclean, Esq.
Anne O. Decker, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 621-2493
E-mail: EMacLean@aclunc.org
ADecker@aclunc.org
TWIG NEW YORK: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Twig New York, LLC.
The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Twig New York, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-06974 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Twig New York -- https://www.twigny.com/ -- offers fine bone China,
dinnerware, serveware, tableware, drinkware and more.[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
UGI CORP: Deal with Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs Gets Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the settlement in the
indirect purchaser plaintiffs received final court approval on
March 30, 2021.
Between May and October of 2014, purported class action lawsuits
were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI
and a competitor by certain of their direct and indirect customers.
The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the
Partnership and its competitor colluded, beginning in 2008, to
reduce the fill level of portable propane cylinders from 17 pounds
to 15 pounds and combined to persuade their common customer,
Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in
increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in
violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The claims
seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs
on behalf of the putative classes.
On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class
action cases to the Western Missouri District Court.
As the result of rulings on a series of procedural filings,
including petitions filed with the Eighth Circuit and the U.S.
Supreme Court, both the federal and state law claims of the direct
customer plaintiffs and the state law claims of the indirect
customer plaintiffs were remanded to the Western Missouri District
Court.
The decision of the Western Missouri District Court to dismiss the
federal antitrust claims of the indirect customer plaintiffs was
upheld by the Eighth Circuit.
On April 15, 2019, the Western Missouri District Court ruled that
it has jurisdiction over the indirect purchasers' state law claims
and that the indirect customer plaintiffs have standing to pursue
those claims.
On August 21, 2019, the District Court partially granted the
Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the
claims of indirect customer plaintiffs from ten states and the
District of Columbia.
On October 2, 2019, the Partnership reached an agreement to resolve
the claims of the direct purchaser class of plaintiffs; the
agreement received final court approval on June 18, 2020.
On September 18, 2020, the Partnership and counsel for the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs filed a joint statement with the court that
they had reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims of
the remaining classes and plaintiffs; the settlement received final
court approval on March 30, 2021.
UGI said, "Although we cannot predict the final results of these
pending claims and legal actions, we believe, after consultation
with counsel, that the final outcome of these matters will not have
a material effect on our financial statements."
UGI Corporation distributes, stores, transports, and markets energy
products and related services in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through four segments:
AmeriGas Propane, UGI International, Midstream & Marketing, and UGI
Utilities. UGI Corporation was founded in 1882 and is based in King
of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
UNITED PARCEL: Underpays Warehouse Employees, Malone Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MALONE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-03643 (E.D. Penn., August 16, 2021) brings this class
action complaint against the Defendant seeking all available relief
under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt and
hourly-paid Pennsylvania warehouse employee since approximately
October 1992.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant did not compensate him and
other similarly situated warehouse employees for all hours they
perform work for the Defendant. Specifically, they were not
compensated for the time they spent performing pre- and post-shift
mandatory security screening. The Defendant purportedly denied them
of their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 per workweek.
United Parcel Service, Inc. operates as a package delivery company.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
1845 Walnut St., 24th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 656-3600
Fax: (215) 567-2310
E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com
- and –
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Krysten Connon, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Tel: (267) 256-9973
- and –
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twinning Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Tel: (215) 884-2491
UNITED STATES: Faces Hart Suit Over Rails-to-Trails Project
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S.A. The case is
captioned as LORI HART, et al., v. U.S.A., Case No.
1:21-cv-01652-LAS (Ct. Fed. Cl., Aug. 2, 2021).
The suit involves the taking of private property in Rails-to-Trails
project demanding $1 million in damages.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Loren A. Smith.[BN]
Plaintiffs Lori Hart, Executor of the Estate of Chris Hart;
Cassandra Hosch Surratt; Thomas S. McSwain; Mary Coleman McCluney,
The Estate of Millie Reid McCluney, and Heirs of Millie Reid
McCluney; Lloyd Dixon Self; and Town of Patterson Springs, North
Carolina, For Themselves and As Representatives of a Class
Similarly Situated Persons, et al., are represented by:
Mark Fernlund Hearne, II, Esq.
TRUE NORTH LAW LLC
112 S. Hanley Road, Suite 200
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 296-4000
Facsimile: (314) 296-4001
E-mail: thor@truenorthlawgroup.com
UNITY SURVEILLANCE: Misclassifies Technicians, Savage Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN SAVAGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITY SURVEILLANCE, INC., and JONATHAN
TERAUCHI, Defendants, Case No. 6:21-cv-06119-SOH (W.D. Ark., August
13, 2021) brings this collective action complaint against the
Defendants seeking damages and relief as a result of their alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a salaried
installation technician from February 2021 to July 2021.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant misclassified him and
other similarly situated Installation Technicians as exempt from
overtime requirements of the FLSA. Despite regularly working more
than 40 hours per week, the Defendant denied them of their lawfully
earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times
their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek, says the Plaintiff.
Unity Surveillance, Inc. operates a surveillance and tech security
company. Jonathan Terauchi is a principal, director, officer,
and/or owner of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 51
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
VAXART INC: Bid to Dismiss California Consolidated Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vaxart, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated
class action suit in California, is pending.
In August and September 2020, two substantially similar securities
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. The first, titled Himmelberg v.
Vaxart, Inc. et al. was filed on August 24, 2020.
The second action, titled Hovhannisyan v. Vaxart, Inc. et al. was
filed on September 1, 2020 (the "Putative Class Action").
By Order dated September 17, 2020, the two actions were deemed
related; lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel were
subsequently appointed on December 9, 2020.
On January 29, 2021, the lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint. On July 8, 2021, all defendants moved to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint. On May 14, 2021, the court
granted lead plaintiffs' request to amend the consolidated amended
complaint and denied defendants' motions to dismiss as moot.
On June 10, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed a first amended
consolidated complaint. The first amended consolidated complaint
names as defendants certain of Vaxart's current and former
executive officers and directors, as well as Armistice.
It claims three violations of federal civil securities laws;
violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5,
as against the Company and all individual defendants; violation of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as against Armistice and all
individual defendants; and violation of Section 20A of the Exchange
Act against Armistice.
The first amended consolidated complaint alleges that the
defendants violated securities laws by misstating and/or omitting
information regarding the Company's development of a norovirus
vaccine, the vaccine manufacturing capabilities of a business
counterparty, and the Company's involvement with Operation Warp
Speed ("OWS"); and by engaging in a scheme to inflate Vaxart's
stock price.
The first amended consolidated complaint seeks to be certified as a
class action for similarly situated shareholders and seeks, among
other things, an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys' fees
and costs.
On July 8, 2021, all defendants moved to dismiss the first amended
consolidated complaint. The motion is pending.
Vaxart, Inc., a clinical-stage company, engages in the discovery
and development of oral recombinant protein vaccines based on its
proprietary oral vaccine platform. The company's product pipeline
includes tablet vaccines that are designed to protect against
norovirus, seasonal influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus. It
is also developing therapeutic immune-oncology vaccines for
cervical cancer and dysplasia caused by human papillomavirus. The
company was formerly known as Vaxart Biosciences, Inc. and changed
its name to Vaxart, Inc. in July 2007. The company was incorporated
in 2004 and is headquartered in South San Francisco, California.
VAXART INC: Bid to Dismiss Stockholder Suit in Delaware Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vaxart, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the motions to dismiss filed by the
defendants in the suit entitled, In re Vaxart, Inc. Stockholder
Litigation, is pending.
On September 8, 2020, a purported shareholder derivative complaint
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
entitled Galjour v. Floroiu, et al.
On October 20, 2020, a purported shareholder derivative and class
action complaint, entitled Jaquith v. Vaxart, Inc., was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On November 12,
2020, the two actions were consolidated under the caption In re
Vaxart, Inc. Stockholder Litigation and the complaint filed in the
Jaquith action was deemed the operative pleading.
The operative complaint names as defendants certain current and
former Vaxart directors, asserting claims against them for breach
of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment and seeking, among other
things, an award of unspecified damages, certain equitable relief,
and attorneys' fees and costs.
The complaint also asserts claims for unjust enrichment and breach
of fiduciary duty or alternatively aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty against Armistice.
The complaint challenges certain stock options granted to certain
of the Company's officers and directors between March 24, 2020 and
June 15, 2020; certain alleged statements and omissions made in the
Company's April 24, 2020 proxy statement; and certain amendments to
two warrants held by Armistice, as disclosed on June 8, 2020.
The complaint purports to bring all but one of the claims
derivatively on behalf of and for the benefit of the Company.
It also purports to bring one claim, for breach of fiduciary duty
based on alleged statements and omissions in the Company's April
24, 2020 proxy statement, directly on behalf of a class of Vaxart
stockholders.
The complaint names the Company as a "nominal defendant" against
which no damages are sought.
On January 4, 2021, all defendants filed motions to dismiss. These
motions are pending.
Vaxart, Inc., a clinical-stage company, engages in the discovery
and development of oral recombinant protein vaccines based on its
proprietary oral vaccine platform. The company's product pipeline
includes tablet vaccines that are designed to protect against
norovirus, seasonal influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus. It
is also developing therapeutic immune-oncology vaccines for
cervical cancer and dysplasia caused by human papillomavirus. The
company was formerly known as Vaxart Biosciences, Inc. and changed
its name to Vaxart, Inc. in July 2007. The company was incorporated
in 2004 and is headquartered in South San Francisco, California.
VIACOMCBS INC: Agreement Reached in Spot Advertising Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ViacomCBS Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that an agreement in
principle has been reached in the putative class action suit
initiated by purchasers of broadcast television spot advertising.
On September 9, 2019, the Company was added as a defendant in a
multi-district putative class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The lawsuit was filed by parties that claim to have purchased
broadcast television spot advertising beginning on or about January
1, 2014 on television stations owned by one or more of the
defendant television station owners and alleges the sharing of
allegedly competitively sensitive information among such television
stations in alleged violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
The action, which names the Company among fourteen total
defendants, seeks monetary damages, attorneys' fees, costs and
interest as well as injunctions against the allegedly unlawful
conduct.
On October 8, 2019, the Company and other defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the matter, which was denied by the court on November 6,
2020.
ViacomCBS said, "We have reached an agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs to settle the lawsuit. The settlement, which will
include no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company,
will be subject to court approval."
ViacomCBS Inc., a media and entertainment, creates content and
experiences for audiences worldwide. The company operates in four
segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, and Local
Media. The company was formerly known as CBS Corporation and
changed its name to ViacomCBS Inc. in December 2019. ViacomCBS Inc.
was founded in 1986 and is based in New York, New York.
VIACOMCBS INC: Construction Laborers Pension Trust Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
ViacomCBS Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a class action by the Construction Laborers Pension Trust
for Southern California.
On August 27, 2018 and on October 1, 2018, Gene Samit and John
Lantz, respectively, filed putative class action lawsuits in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, for claims
that are similar to those alleged in the amended complaint
described below. On November 6, 2018, the Court entered an order
consolidating the two actions.
On November 30, 2018, the Court appointed Construction Laborers
Pension Trust for Southern California as the lead plaintiff of the
consolidated action.
On February 11, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended putative class action complaint against CBS, certain
current and former senior executives and members of the CBS Board
of Directors.
The consolidated action is stated to be on behalf of purchasers of
CBS Class A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock between September
26, 2016 and December 4, 2018. This action seeks to recover damages
arising during this time period allegedly caused by the defendants'
purported violations of the federal securities laws, including by
allegedly making materially false and misleading statements or
failing to disclose material information, and seeks costs and
expenses as well as remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
On April 12, 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss this
action, which the Court granted in part and denied in part on
January 15, 2020.
With the exception of one statement made by Mr. Leslie Moonves at
an industry event in November 2017, in which he allegedly was
acting as the agent of CBS, all claims as to all other allegedly
false and misleading statements were dismissed.
ViacomCBS said, "We believe that the remaining claims are without
merit and we intend to defend against them vigorously."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
ViacomCBS Inc., a media and entertainment, creates content and
experiences for audiences worldwide. The company operates in four
segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, and Local
Media. The company was formerly known as CBS Corporation and
changed its name to ViacomCBS Inc. in December 2019. ViacomCBS Inc.
was founded in 1986 and is based in New York, New York.
VIACOMCBS INC: Discovery in CBS Merger-Related Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
ViacomCBS Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
the putative class action suit headed by Bucks County Employees'
Retirement Fund and International Union of Operating Engineers of
Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware.
On December 4, 2019, Viacom Inc. merged with and into CBS
Corporation, with CBS continuing as the surviving company. At the
effective time of the Merger, the combined company changed its name
to ViacomCBS Inc. The Merger has been accounted for as a
transaction between entities under common control as National
Amusements, Inc. ("NAI") was the controlling stockholder of each of
CBS and Viacom (and remains the controlling stockholder of
ViacomCBS).
Upon the closing of the Merger, the net assets of Viacom were
combined with those of CBS at their historical carrying amounts and
the companies have been presented on a combined basis for all
periods presented.
Beginning on February 20, 2020, three purported CBS stockholders
filed separate derivative and/or putative class action lawsuits in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
On March 31, 2020, the Court consolidated the three lawsuits and
appointed Bucks County Employees' Retirement Fund and International
Union of Operating Engineers of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware
as co-lead plaintiffs for the consolidated action. On April 14,
2020, the lead plaintiffs filed a Verified Consolidated Class
Action and Derivative Complaint against Shari E. Redstone, NAI,
Sumner M. Redstone National Amusements Trust, members of the CBS
Board of Directors (comprised of Candace K. Beinecke, Barbara M.
Byrne, Gary L. Countryman, Brian Goldner, Linda M. Griego, Robert
N. Klieger, Martha L. Minow, Susan Schuman, Frederick O. Terrell
and Strauss Zelnick), former CBS President and Acting Chief
Executive Officer Joseph Ianniello and nominal defendant ViacomCBS
Inc. The Complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties to CBS
stockholders in connection with the negotiation and approval of the
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of August 13, 2019, as
amended on October 16, 2019 (the "Merger Agreement").
The Complaint also alleges waste and unjust enrichment in
connection with Mr. Ianniello's compensation. The Complaint seeks
unspecified damages, costs and expenses, as well as other relief.
On June 5, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss. On
January 27, 2021, the Court dismissed one disclosure claim, while
allowing all other claims against the defendants to proceed.
ViacomCBS said, "Discovery on the surviving claims is proceeding."
We believe that the remaining claims are without merit and we
intend to defend against them vigorously.
ViacomCBS Inc., a media and entertainment, creates content and
experiences for audiences worldwide. The company operates in four
segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, and Local
Media. The company was formerly known as CBS Corporation and
changed its name to ViacomCBS Inc. in December 2019. ViacomCBS Inc.
was founded in 1986 and is based in New York, New York.
VIACOMCBS INC: Discovery Ongoing in CalPERS Suit
------------------------------------------------
ViacomCBS Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
the putative class action suit headed by the California Public
Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS).
Beginning on November 25, 2019, four purported Viacom stockholders
filed separate putative class action lawsuits in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware. On January 23, 2020, the Court
consolidated the four lawsuits.
On February 6, 2020, the Court appointed CalPERS as lead plaintiff
for the consolidated action. On February 28, 2020, CalPERS,
together with Park Employees' and Retirement Board Employees'
Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago and Louis M. Wilen, filed a
First Amended Verified Class Action Complaint against National
Amusements, Inc. (NAI), NAI Entertainment Holdings LLC, Shari E.
Redstone, the members of the Viacom special transaction committee
of the Viacom Board of Directors (comprised of Thomas J. May,
Judith A. McHale, Ronald L. Nelson and Nicole Seligman) and the
company's President and Chief Executive Officer and director,
Robert M. Bakish.
The Complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties to Viacom
stockholders in connection with the negotiation and approval of the
Merger Agreement. The Complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs
and expenses, as well as other relief.
On May 22, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss.
On December 29, 2020, the Court dismissed the claims against Mr.
Bakish, while allowing the claims against the remaining defendants
to proceed. Discovery on the surviving claims is proceeding.
ViacomCBS said, "We believe that the remaining claims are without
merit and we intend to defend against them vigorously."
ViacomCBS Inc., a media and entertainment, creates content and
experiences for audiences worldwide. The company operates in four
segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, and Local
Media. The company was formerly known as CBS Corporation and
changed its name to ViacomCBS Inc. in December 2019. ViacomCBS Inc.
was founded in 1986 and is based in New York, New York.
VIEW INC: Faces Mehedi Suit Over 24% Decline of Stock Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
ASIF MEHEDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VIEW, INC. f/k/a CF FINANCE ACQUISITION
CORP. II, RAO MULPURI, and VIDUL PRAKASH, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-06374 (N.D. Cal., August 18, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission regarding View's business, operations, and prospects in
order to trade View securities at artificially inflated prices
between November 30, 2020 and August 16, 2021. Specifically, the
Defendants allegedly failed to disclose to investors: (1) that View
had not properly accrued warranty costs related to its product; (2)
that there was a material weakness in View's internal controls over
accounting and financial reporting related to warranty accrual; (3)
that, as a result, the company's financial results for prior
periods were misstated; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
the Defendants' positive statements about the company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
When the truth emerged, the company's share price fell $1.26, or
over 24%, to close at $3.92 per share on August 17, 2021, damaging
investors, says the suit.
View, Inc., formerly known as CF Finance Acquisition Corp. II, is a
technology company that manufactures smart building products,
headquartered in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
- and –
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
VITRO FLAT: Court Stays Proceedings in Romero Suit Until Feb. 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California stayed the case, AARON ROMERO,
Plaintiff v. VITRO FLAT GLASS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01573-NONE-SAB (E.D. Cal.), until Feb. 17, 2022.
On Oct. 5, 2020, Aaron Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similar situated, filed the action in the Superior Court of
California, Fresno County. On Nov. 6, 2020, Vitro removed the
action to the Eastern District of Fresno. On Nov. 9, 2020, an order
issued setting the mandatory scheduling conference in this action
for Jan. 8, 2021. The Defendant filed an answer on Nov. 17, 2020.
On Dec. 15, 2020, the Court granted a stipulated request to
continue the mandatory scheduling conference to Aug. 17, 2021 so
the parties could participate in mediation.
On Aug. 5, 2021, the parties filed a notice of settlement and
stipulated request to stay the action. They proffer that after the
scheduling conference was continued, the Plaintiff filed a case
against Defendant alleging violations of the Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") in the California Superior Court for
Kern County (Case No. BCV-21-101357), where it is currently
pending. The underlying allegations to the PAGA case are generally
the same as the allegations made in the case pending in and removed
to theCourt.
The Parties recently attended a global mediation of both cases with
which was successful. They executed a Memorandum of Understanding
and are currently drafting and negotiating a long-form class action
settlement agreement to resolve both the case and the PAGA action.
They will pursue settlement approval of the instant action and the
PAGA action in the Superior Court where the companion PAGA action
is currently pending.
The Parties request that the Court stays the case pending
settlement approval and vacate all dates currently set. The
Plaintiff will file a request for dismissal of the action within
two weeks of the earlier of: (i) the Superior Court entering
judgment after final approval of the class action settlement, if
there are no objectors, (ii) the date all objector(s) withdraw(s)
their objection after final approval is granted, or (iii) the date
any appeal initiated by any objector(s) finally terminates without
a change in the court's judgment granting final approval.
Judge Boone finds good cause to vacate all pending matters and stay
the action. He holds that while the parties request to set a
settlement conference in six months, he will instead have the
parties file a joint status report at that time if no request for
dismissal has been filed.
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, Judge Boone vacated all
pending matters and dates. The matter is stayed until Feb. 17,
2022. The parties will file a joint status report by Feb. 17,
2022.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/pwrzvw99 from Leagle.com.
WALGREENS SPECIALTY: Faces Wilkerson Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Ariz.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA WILKERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREENS SPECIALTY PHARMACY, LLC
D/B/A ALLIANCERX WALGREENS PRIME and HEALTHCARE SUPPORT STAFFING,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01427-JAT (D. Ariz., August 18,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and unpaid overtime wages in violation
of Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona Wage Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a call center
representative from September 2020 to May 2021.
Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy, LLC, doing business as AllianceRx
Walgreens Prime, is an operator of call centers in the U.S.,
headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.
Healthcare Support Staffing, Inc. is a company that specializes in
labor staffing for the health care industry, headquartered in
Maitland, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard P. Traulsen, Esq.
BEGAM MARKS & TRAULSEN, P.A.
11201 North Tatum Blvd., Suite 110
Phoenix, AZ 85028-6037
Telephone: (602) 254-6071
E-mail: rtraulsen@BMT-law.com
- and –
Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
Saint Paul, MN 55101
E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com
WALMART INC: Ellebracht Product Liability Suit Moved to S.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHELBY ELLEBRACHT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. WALMART INC., Case No.
4:20-cv-00361, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on August 17, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Ohio assigned Case
No. 1:21-cv-00527-MRB to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged distribution and sale
of defective candle. The Plaintiff claims injuries from an
exploding candle.
Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Beth C. Boggs, Esq.
BOGGS, AVELLINO, LACH & BOGGS, LLC
9326 Olive Blvd., Suite 200
St. Louis, MO 63132
Telephone: (314) 726-2310
Facsimile: (314) 726-2360
E-mail: bboggs@balblawyers.com
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Appeal on Dismissal of Wage & Hour Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Werner Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal in the order
dismissing a wage-and-hour class suit in Nebraska, is still
pending.
The company has been involved in class action litigation in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, in which the
plaintiffs allege that the company owes drivers for unpaid wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Nebraska Wage
Payment and Collection Act and that he company failed to pay
minimum wage per hour for drivers in its Career Track Program,
related to short break time and sleeper berth time.
The period covered by this class action suit is August 2008 through
March 2014.
The case was tried to a jury in May 2017, resulting in a verdict of
$0.8 million in plaintiffs' favor on the short break matter and a
verdict in the company's favor on the sleeper berth matter.
As a result of various post-trial motions, the court awarded $0.5
million to the plaintiffs for attorney fees and costs.
Plaintiffs appealed the post-verdict amounts awarded by the trial
court for fees, costs and liquidated damages, and the Company filed
a cross appeal on the verdict that was in plaintiffs' favor.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied
Plaintiffs' appeal and granted Werner's appeal, vacating the
judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
The appellate court sent the case back to the trial court for
proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion.
On June 22, 2020, the trial court denied Plaintiffs' request for a
new trial and entered judgment in favor of the Company, dismissing
the case with prejudice.
On July 21, 2020, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a notice of appeal of
that dismissal.
Werner said, "As of June 30, 2021, we have an accrual for the
jury's award, attorney fees and costs in the short break matter and
had not accrued for the sleeper berth matter."
Werner Enterprises, Inc., a transportation and logistics company,
engages in transporting truckload shipments of general commodities
in interstate and intrastate commerce in the United States, Mexico,
Canada, and China. It operates in two segments, Truckload
Transportation Services and Werner Logistics. Werner Enterprises,
Inc. was founded in 1956 and is headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.
WEST MASS: Laquidara Seeks to Certify Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE LAQUIDARA
individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v.
KIMBERLY BRUNELLE, and CHRISTOPHER BRUNELLE, WEST MASS MANAGEMENT
GROUP, LLC d/b/a MAGIC LANTERN, and MARK PESSOLANO, ORANGE LANTERN
INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-30039-KAR (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying this action as a collective
action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);
2. directing that notice be issued to individuals who have
worked as exotic dancers at Magic Lantern within the past
three years; and
3. directing the Defendants to produce, within 14 days of the
Court's Order granting conditional certification, a list
of the names, last-known mailing and e-mail addresses, and
telephone numbers for all individuals who have worked as
exotic dancers at Magic Lantern within the past three
years.
Plaintiff Laquidara has brought this collective action on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated individuals who have
worked as exotic dancers at West Mass Management Group, LLC,
seeking to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).
Plaintiff Laquidara asserts that she and other exotic dancers
working for Magic Lantern were all subject to the same rules and
policies imposed by the Defendants, 2 were not paid minimum wage as
required by the FLSA, and were required to pay unlawful kickbacks
to Magic Lantern in violation of the FLSA.
Plaintiff Laquidara worked as an exotic dancer at Magic lantern
between July and December 2020.
Magic Lantern is a strip club located in Palmer, Massachusetts,
where live nude dance entertainment is presented to adult members
of the general public.
Lantern is currently owned and operated by Defendants Kimberly
Brunelle and Christopher Brunelle. Prior to 2020, the club was
operated by Mark Pessolano and the Orange Lantern, Inc.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 11,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3D3gPBR
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Collective, are:
Olena Savytska, Esq.
Harold Lichten, Esq.
Olena Savytska, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
osavytska@llrlaw.com
WESTMORELAND SANITARY: Childs Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as David Childs, Whitney Cole, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated v. Westmoreland
Sanitary Landfill, LLC, Case No. 2511 of 2021 was removed from the
Westmoreland County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on August 19, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01100-NBF to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land.
Westmoreland Sanitary Landfill -- http://www.westmorelandslf.com/
-- operates a landfill and waste hauling business in Belle Vernon,
Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James E. DePasquale, Esq.
1302 Grant Building
310 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 471-1415
Email: jim.depasquale@verizon.net
The Defendant is represented by:
Stanley Yorsz, Esq.
William J. Moorhead, Jr., Esq.
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
Union Trust Building
501 Grant Street, Suite 200
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 562-8841
Fax: (412) 562-1041
Email: stanley.yorsz@bipc.com
william.moorhead@bipc.com
YONKERS BREWING: Hernandez Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Cooks
------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOR HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YONKERS BREWING COMPANY LLC, JOHN RUBBO,
NICHOLAS CALIFANO, and MIKE PECS, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-06951 (S.D.N.Y., August 18, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law including unpaid minimum wages, failure to
provide wage notices, and failure to furnish accurate wage
statements.
Ms. Hernandez has been employed as a cook at the Defendants'
restaurant located at 92 Main Street, Yonkers, New York from on or
around April 2021.
Yonkers Brewing Company LLC is an operator of a restaurant located
at 92 Main Street, Yonkers, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.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 ***