/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210908.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, September 8, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 174
Headlines
ACT INC: First Circuit Affirms Certification Denial in TCPA Suit
ALISHA TAFOYA-LUCERO: Hunnicutt Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
ALLERGAN INC: Gandionco Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
AMERICAN AXLE: Harris BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
AMERICAN HONDA: Woo Class Status Filing Due June 3, 2022
ANNOVIS BIO: Kessler Topaz Reminds of October 18 Deadline
ANNOVIS BIO: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 16 Deadline
ANTHEM BLUE: Judge Preliminary Approves Class Action Settlement
APPLE INC: Motion to Dismiss Filed in Primary Productions Suit
APPLE INC: Must Face Siri Voice Assistant Privacy Lawsuit in Calif.
ARAMARK SERVICES: Billups Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
ARISE VIRTUAL: Seeks to Defer Briefing in Opposition to Notice Bid
BIG PICTURE: Deadline to File Class Action Claim Set Sept. 10
BIODELIVERY SCIENCES: Not Compelled to Show Email in Drachman Suit
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Bridges GIPA Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Class Action Over Impact of "Birth Alerts"
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of October 26 Deadline
CBR SYSTEMS: Misrepresents Cord Blood Storage Fees, Cohen Says
CHASE DENNIS: Oct. 15 Deadline for Class Cert. Bid Sought
CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Class Settlement in Cotter Suit Wins Final Nod
CO-OPERATORS GENERAL: Court Certifies COVID-19 Business Claims Suit
COLORADO: Federal Class Action Lawsuit Draws Attention to Children
CONFIDENTIAL GENTLEMEN'S: Exotic Dancer Sues Over Unpaid Wages
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Cert. Bid Deadline Extended to Sept. 10
CRACKER BARREL: Seeks to Stay Conditional Cert. Briefing
CREDIT CONTROL: Dixon Seeks Extension to File Class Cert. Bid
DANIEL MULLINS: Esprits Seek Time Extension to File Class Cert. Bid
DANSKE BANK: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
DETROIT, MI: Court Narrows Claims in Lockard Class Suit
DIDI GLOBAL: Kaplan Fox Reminds of September 7 Deadline
DRAFTKINGS INC: Shareholders Vie For Lead Plaintiff Position
DUPAGE MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
FLO HEALTH: Faces Consolidated Lawsuit Over Fertility-Tracking App
FORD MOTOR: S.D. California Trims Claims in Lessin's Amended Suit
FORTUNA REALTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kisin Suit Alleges
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of October 19 Deadline
GENERAL MOTORS: Court OKs Stipulation for Class Certification
GENERAL MOTORS: Deadline Extension for Class Cert. Filing Sought
GOLDMAN SACHS: Investor Files Suit Over Proposed Mirion Merger
GREIF PACKAGING: Class Cert Filing Deadline Continued to Nov. 29
HF FOODS: Mendoza Securities Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
HYRECAR INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 26 Deadline
HYRECAR INC: Thornton Law Reminds of October 26 Deadline
INGENIOUS DESIGNS: Reaches Class Settlement in Consumer Safety Suit
INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE: Deadline for Class Cert Filing Extended
KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 26 Deadline
KELLOGG CO: Class Action Settlement Final Submissions Set Sept. 7
KROGER CO: Class Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set Sept. 20
LIVE VENTURES: Thornton Law Reminds of October 12 Deadline
MDL 2981: Court Resolves Google's Bid to Seal in Antitrust Suit
MINTED LLC: Class Action Claim Forms Deadline Set Sept. 16
MOWI USA: Deadline of Mislabeled Class Claim Filing Set Sept. 10
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Court Tosses Dent Class Certification Bid
NATIONAL HOSPITALITY: Lea Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
NESTLE CORP: E.D. California Denies Stuckey's Bid to Certify Class
NEW YORK CITY: Chalmers Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
OMNIPOINT MANAGEMENT: Time Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
PHILIPS CANADA: Faces Class Action Over CPAP Breathing Devices
PICNIC TIME: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
POWER HOME: Landy Sues Over Unsolicited Autodialed Calls
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Rodriguez Class Cert. Bid Junked as Moot
RAVALLI COUNTY, MT: Runs Scheme With High Pretrial Fees, Says Suit
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Extension for Class Cert. Bid Filing Sought
ROSANNA IMPORTS: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE: Edge Suit Removed to N.D. West Virginia
SAGE ECOENTERPRISES: Conditional Class Cert Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice
SAINT-GOBAIN: Sept. 8-9 Meetings Scheduled for $65MM Settlement
SESEN BIO: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of October 18 Deadline
SHUTTERFLY LLC: BIPA Class Action Suit Filing Deadline Set Sept. 14
SPECTRUM PHARMA: Luo Hits Share Price Drop
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Nov. 1 Deadline
SPEEDWAY LLC: Court Decertifies FLSA Collective in DaRosa Suit
STATE FARM: Martino Seeks Nov. 15 Extension to File Class Cert Bid
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Student Files Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
TENNESSEE: Judge Grants Restraining Order on Schools' Mask Mandate
TEXAS: Lawyers File Class Suit Over First Amendment Violations
TIMBERWORKS CONSTRUCTION: Iribe Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ruling Lays Foundation for Common Issues Trial
UNITED INDUSTRIES: Deadline to File Settlement Set Sept. 20
VIEW INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 17 Deadline
VIEW INC: Thornton Law Reminds of October 18 Deadline
VIEWRAY INC: PCRA's 2nd Amended Complaint Dismissed With Prejudice
W.R. GRACE: Misleads Stockholders to Approve Merger, Wilson Claims
WALMART INC: Corbett Files Suit in W.D. New York
WALMART INC: USERRA Class Action Filing Deadline Set Sept. 16
WASHINGTON POST: Deadline of Subscription Class Claims Set Sept. 19
WESTSIDE DIALYSIS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bell Suit Claims
*********
ACT INC: First Circuit Affirms Certification Denial in TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that here's a tip for
class action defendants in New England and Puerto Rico: If you
credibly threaten to turn your case into a series of mini-trials
over class membership, you can probably beat class certification.
That's the upshot of a new ruling from the 1st U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals in Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. ACT Inc, in which
Judges Sandra Lynch, William Kayatta and David Barron affirmed the
denial of class certification to a prospective class of schools
that allegedly received fax advertisements from ACT, the
educational testing company. The 1st Circuit concluded that ACT had
offered a heap of evidence to show that many schools had consented
to receive the allegedly improper faxes, so the class could not
satisfy the federal procedural rule that requires class-wide issues
to predominate over individual inquiries.
The court's opinion, by Kayatta, is straightforward. ACT's lawyers
at Perkins Coie argued that class membership hinged on individual
issues of consent. To prove that point, the testing service
provided declarations from nearly 80 schools that said they would
have consented to receive the three faxes Bais Yaakov alleged
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Fax recipients that
expressly consented to receive ACT's communiques didn't belong in
the class - but, according to the 1st Circuit, Bais Yaakov's
lawyers at Bellin & Associates did not offer an administratively
feasible method to cull these consenting fax recipients from the
prospective class.
The larger significance of the decision came in a concurrence from
Barron, who rather wryly noted that the court's discussion of
predominance "will not go unnoticed." That's because, as Barron
discussed, the ACT ruling doubles down on the 1st Circuit's
controversial 2018 decision in In re: Asacol Antitrust Litigation,
which held that ulcerative colitis drug purchasers could not be
certified as a class because the drug-company defendants had vowed
to contest class members' sworn affidavits attesting that they
overpaid for brand-name drugs.
The Asacol decision, Barron acknowledged, prompted consternation
from trial judges in the 1st Circuit, who worried that the
appellate court's interpretation of the predominance requirement
would enable defendants to squelch valid class actions that relied
on individual testimony to establish class membership.
Barron, who was on the panel that decided Asacol (as were Lynch and
Kayatta), said the ACT decision "may increase the concern that we
are mistakenly construing the predominance requirement to render
Rule 23, at least in certain important categories of cases,
incapable of protecting 'the rights of groups of people who
individually would be without effective strength to bring their
opponents into court at all.'"
The judge insisted that concern was "misplaced, or, at least,
premature."
Yes, Barron wrote, the court's precedent holds that defendants can
defeat class certification by making "a seemingly credible promise
to challenge the testimony that each class member would give if
required to do so at a trial on that issue." The judge maintained,
however, that the 2018 Asacol opinion and the new ACT opinion do
not give defendants a free ticket out of class certification just
by vowing to contest plaintiffs' declarations.
The court's precedent, he said, instead requires plaintiffs to show
how they would maintain fairness and efficiency in a trial of class
claims despite defendants' threatened individualized challenges to
class membership. Barron emphasized that before ruling on class
certification, trial judges must make case-by-case determinations
about just how many individualized mini-trials they would actually
have to conduct to reach a judgment.
Barron said the Asacol and ACT decisions leave open "various viable
means" for class plaintiffs to meet the predominance requirement,
even if defendants have promised to contest class members' sworn
testimony. By my reading, he didn't really offer a lot of
justification for that assertion. The judge said Bais Yaakov might
have argued, for instance, that the 78 declarations ACT collected
from purportedly consenting schools were only a small subset of the
class, or that it would be possible to identify the subset without
mini-trials. Barron also said that Bais Yaakov could have contended
that ACT would not be capable of effectively contesting claims by
more than a small number of class members. Generally speaking, the
judge wrote, it's hard for a defendant to disprove plaintiffs'
testimony about their own state of mind.
"There is still much to be decided when it comes to the
predominance requirement, notwithstanding our important holdings to
date," Barron wrote. "I am confident that, as a consequence of this
decision, our current precedent in this area continues to ensure
that viable opportunities remain for securing class certification
in cases involving claims that inherently depend on highly
individualized means of proof."
Really? If I were a plaintiffs lawyer, I'd think twice about making
that bet -- especially because future class action defendants can
follow ACT's lead and collect declarations that raise credible
doubts about who is actually a member of the class. My guess is
that after Asacol and ACT, the class action bar will instead avoid
the 1st Circuit if it's at all possible.
Bais Yaakov counsel Aytan Bellin at Bellin & Associates did not
respond to my email about the 1st Circuit ruling.
ACT counsel Robert Burgoyne at Perkins Coie said by email that the
court's decision was well-reasoned. "We certainly thought it was
important and appropriate for the district court and the court of
appeals to consider the testimony of other schools in the putative
class in determining whether class certification was warranted,
where a single named plaintiff was seeking millions of dollars in
damages under the TCPA based upon an assertion that our client had
no permission from schools to send the faxes at issue," he said.
Opinions expressed here are those of the author. Reuters News,
under the Trust Principles, is committed to integrity, independence
and freedom from bias. [GN]
ALISHA TAFOYA-LUCERO: Hunnicutt Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Carnell Hunnicutt, Sr., and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. Alisha Tafoya-Lucero, Robert Leon,
NMCD, Jay Arimjo, Keefe Corporation, to include Keefe Commissary
Network, Access Corrections, and Access Securpak, Case No.
20cv2727, was removed from the First Judicial District Court, West
Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico
on Sept. 2, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00867-JCH-JFR to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.
Alisha Tafoya-Lucero --
https://cd.nm.gov/about-us/office-of-the-secretary/ -- has served
the State of New Mexico for more than 20 years; 18 of those within
the New Mexico Corrections Department.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Scott Woody, Esq.
NORDHAUS, HALTOM, TAYLOR, TARADASH & BLADH, LLP
1239 Paseo de Peralta
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Phone: (505) 982-9523
Email: scott.woody@gknet.com
ALLERGAN INC: Gandionco Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EARL GANDIONCO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ALLERGAN, INC.; ALLERGAN USA, INC.;
ALLERGAN SALES, LLC; ZELTIQ AESTHETICS, INC.; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. RG21107065, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
September 2, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-06854-SK to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid
rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely
paid, non-compliant wage statements, unreimbursed business
expenses, and unfair competition.
Allergan, Inc. is a global pharmaceutical company, headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.
Allergan USA, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in Irvine,
California.
Allergan Sales, LLC is a pharmaceutical company, headquartered in
Irvine, California.
Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company based in
Pleasanton, California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Rick Bergstrom, Esq.
JONES DAY
4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500
San Diego, CA 92121-3134
Telephone: (858) 314-1200
Facsimile: (844) 345-3178
E-mail: rjbergstrom@jonesday.com
- and –
Allison Crow, Esq.
JONES DAY
555 California Street, 25th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 626-3939
Facsimile: (415) 875-5700
E-mail: acrow@jonesday.com
AMERICAN AXLE: Harris BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ARTISE HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AMERICAN AXLE & MANUFACTURING, INC.,
Case No. 2021CH03704, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on September 2, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-04693 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. is an American manufacturer of
automobile driveline and drivetrain components and systems,
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Harry J. Secaras, Esq.
Jennifer L. Colvin, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &STEWART, P.C.
155 North Wacker Drive, Suite 4300
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 558-1220
E-mail: harry.secaras@ogletree.com
jennifer.colvin@ogletree.com
AMERICAN HONDA: Woo Class Status Filing Due June 3, 2022
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONY WOO, DANIEL RIFKIN,
AND DOUGLAS P. SCHWERT, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Case No.
3:19-cv-07042-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney
entered an order that the scheduling order shall be modified as
follows:
-- Fact Discovery Cutoff: December 17, 2021
-- Expert Witness Disclosures: January 24, 2022
-- Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures: March 18, 2022
-- Expert Discovery Cutoff: April 29, 2022
-- Deadline for Class Certification June 3, 2022
Motion:
-- Opposition to Class Certification: July 22, 2022
-- Reply to Class Certification: August 19, 2022
-- Hearing on Class Certification: September 9, 2022
American Honda develops and manufactures automobiles.
A copy of the Court's order dated August 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zM4ccv at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Defendant are:
Livia M. Kiser, Esq.
Michael B. Shortnacy, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
633 W. 5th Street, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 443-4355
Facsimile: (213) 443-4310
E-mail: lkiser@kslaw.com
mshortnacy@kslaw.com
ANNOVIS BIO: Kessler Topaz Reminds of October 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
against Annovis Bio, Inc. (NYSE: ANVS) ("Annovis") on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired Annovis securities betweeen May 21,
2021 and July 28, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
Annovis securities during the Class Period may, no later than
October 18, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class. For additional information or to learn
how to participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453; toll free at
(844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/annovis-bio-inc-anvs?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=annovis
Annovis is a clinical stage pharmaceutical company that is
developing therapies addressing neurodegeneration, such as
Alzheimer's disease ("AD"), Parkinson's disease ("PD"), and
Alzheimer's disease in Down syndrome. Its lead compound is ANVS401
(Posiphen), an orally administrated drug which purportedly
inhibited the synthesis of neurotoxic proteins that are the main
cause of neurodegeneration. Annovis was conducting two Phase 2a
clinical studies. The trial conducted in collaboration with the
Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study examines 24 early AD
patients, whereas the AD/PD trial examines 14 AD and 54 PD
patients. Both are double-blind, placebo-controlled studies and
were purportedly designed to measure not only target, but also
pathway validation in the spinal fluid of patients.
The Class Period commences on May 21, 2021, when Annovis issued a
press release entitled "Annovis Bio Announces Positive Phase 2 Data
- ANVS401 Improves Cognition in Alzheimer's Disease - Patients'
Cognition Improved 3.3 Points on ADAS-Cog11." Then, on June 1,
2021, Annovis issued a press release entitled "Annovis Bio's
ANVS401 Improves Speed and Accuracy in Alzheimer's and in
Parkinson's Patients."
The truth regarding ANVS401 emerged on July 28, 2021. After the
market closed, Annovis reported interim clinical data from its
Phase 2a trial. Among other things, Annovis reported that AD
patients 25 days after treatment failed to show statistically
significant improvement compared to the placebo. Annovis also
reported that, although patients showed cognitive improvements in
certain areas, the results were not statistically significant.
Following this news, Annovis's share price fell $65.94, or 60%, to
close at $43.50 per share on July 29, 2021.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Annovis's
ANVS401 did not show statistically significant results across two
patient populations as to factors such as orientation, judgement,
and problem solving; and (2) as a result of the foregoing, the
defendants' positive statements about Annovis's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
Annovis investors may, no later than October 18, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Communicating with any
counsel is not necessary to participate or share in any recovery
achieved in this case. Your ability to share in any recovery is not
affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.[GN]
ANNOVIS BIO: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 16 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that the Annovis Bio
class action lawsuit charges Annovis Bio, Inc. and certain of its
top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The Annovis Bio class action lawsuit seeks to represent
purchasers of Annovis Bio securities between May 21, 2021 and July
28, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Annovis Bio class
action lawsuit was commenced on August 17, 2021 in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania and is captioned Zhou v. Annovis Bio,
Inc., No. 21-cv-03668.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Annovis Bio class
action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here.
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead
plaintiff motions for the Annovis Bio class action lawsuit must be
filed with the court no later than October 16, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Annovis Bio is a clinical stage pharmaceutical
company and its lead compound is ANVS401 (Posiphen), an orally
administrated drug which purportedly inhibited the synthesis of
neurotoxic proteins that are the main cause of neurodegeneration.
The Annovis Bio class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose that: (i) Annovis Bio's ANVS401 did not show
statistically significant results across two patient populations as
to factors such as orientation, judgement, and problem solving; and
(ii) as a result, defendants' positive statements about Annovis
Bio's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On July 28, 2021, Annovis Bio reported interim clinical data from
its Phase 2a trial. Among other things, Annovis Bio reported that
Alzheimer's disease patients 25 days after treatment failed to show
statistically significant improvement compared to the placebo.
Annovis Bio also reported that, although patients showed cognitive
improvements in certain areas, the results were not statistically
significant. On this news, Annovis Bio's share price fell
approximately 60%, damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Annovis Bio
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Annovis Bio class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff
is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the Annovis Bio class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Annovis Bio class action lawsuit. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Annovis
Bio action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
About Robbins Geller
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in
securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained
many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including
the largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion -
in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for
recovering $1.6 billion for investors last year, more than double
the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs' firm.
Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.[GN]
ANTHEM BLUE: Judge Preliminary Approves Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Moran, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that a
federal judge preliminarily approved a class-action settlement over
an eating disorder coverage lawsuit facing Anthem Blue Cross.
The case, originally filed in 2016, involves members whose
diagnosed eating disorders involved claims passed through Anthem's
utilization review, especially including those whose requests for
treatment were then denied, according to an Aug. 27 release.
Under the terms of the settlement, members can either resubmit
previously denied claims or opt for a cash settlement. Class
members who continued treatment after claims were denied qualify
for $5,500, while those who dropped treatment qualify for $2,100.
Notice forms must be sent to class members, with the deadline for
class members to return claims forms being set for Dec. 27, 2021.
The approval hearing is set for May 6, 2022. [GN]
APPLE INC: Motion to Dismiss Filed in Primary Productions Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit styled as PRIMARY PRODUCTIONS
LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. APPLE
INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-06841-JSC, the Defendant filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California a motion to
dismiss and a motion to strike the Plaintiff's amended complaint on
September 2, 2021.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Sherman Act by restricting trade, communication, and free
information exchange in the market for iOS app and payment
processing distribution services.
Primary Productions LLC is an edutainment media production company,
headquartered in Maine.
Apple, Inc. is an American multinational technology company based
in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith Mathews, Esq.
ASSOCIATED ATTORNEYS OF NEW ENGLAND
P.O. Box 278
Manchester, NH 03105
Telephone: (603) 622-8100
E-mail: keith@aaone.law
APPLE INC: Must Face Siri Voice Assistant Privacy Lawsuit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel at Reuters reports that a federal judge said Apple
Inc (AAPL.O) must face nearly all of a proposed class action
lawsuit claiming that its voice-activated Siri assistant violates
users' privacy.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White said the plaintiffs could try to
prove Siri routinely recorded their private conversations because
of "accidental activations," and that Apple disclosed these
conversations to third parties, such as advertisers.
Voice assistants typically react when mobile device owners use "hot
words" such as "Hey, Siri."
One Siri user said his private discussions with his doctor about a
"brand name surgical treatment" caused him to receive targeted ads
for that treatment, while two others said their discussions about
Air Jordan sneakers, Pit Viper sunglasses and "Olive Garden" caused
them to receive ads for those products.
"Apple faults plaintiffs for not alleging the contents of their
communications, but the private setting alone is enough to show a
reasonable expectation of privacy," White wrote.
The Oakland, California-based judge said the plaintiffs may pursue
claims that Apple violated the federal Wiretap Act and California
privacy law, and committed breach of contract. He dismissed an
unfair competition claim.
Apple, based in Cupertino, California, did not immediately respond
to requests for comment. Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not
immediately respond to similar requests.
On July 1, another federal judge in California said users of
Google's Voice Assistant, represented by the same law firms as in
the Apple case, could pursue a similar lawsuit against Google and
its parent Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O). read more
Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) has faced similar litigation over its Alexa
voice assistant.
The case is Lopez et al v. Apple Inc., U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California, No. 19-04577. [GN]
ARAMARK SERVICES: Billups Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TIARA BILLUPS-LARKIN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ARAMARK SERVICES, INC. and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. RG21103881, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
September 2, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-06852 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 wages, failure to pay
overtime compensation, unlawful deduction of wages, failure to
provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse
business expenses, and failure to timely pay all wages due upon
separation of employment.
Aramark Services, Inc. is an American food service, facilities, and
uniform services provider, headquartered in Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Eric Meckley, Esq.
Sarah Zenewicz, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Telephone: (415) 442-1000
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com
sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com
ARISE VIRTUAL: Seeks to Defer Briefing in Opposition to Notice Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA BELL, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. ARISE VIRTUAL
SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00538-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order:
1. deferring briefing in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for
notice to be issued pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)
so that the Court can decide Arise's Motion to Compel
Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings first, and to the
extent Plaintiff's Motion is reached by the Court; and
2. granting Arise an extension of time up to 14 days after
this Court rules on Arise's Motion to Compel Arbitration
and to Stay Proceedings.
On July 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, alleging
Arise failed to pay her minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and failed to reimburse her for business expenses.
The next day, the Plaintiff filed her Motion to Certify Class,
seeking to bring these claims on behalf of a putative Fair Labor
Standards Act collective.
On August 10, 2021, Arise was served with the Summons and
Complaint. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, Arise had
until August 31, 2021 to enter an appearance in the case.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 31, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3A20oUJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Sandra J. Wunderlich, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
100 South 4 th Street, Suite 600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 256-2550
Facsimile: (314) 256-2549
E-mail: sandra.wunderlich@tuckerellis.com
- and -
Adam P. KohSweeney, Esq.
Kristin M. MacDonnell, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, Floor 28
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 984-8700
E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com
kmacdonnell@omm.com
BIG PICTURE: Deadline to File Class Action Claim Set Sept. 10
-------------------------------------------------------------
Online lender Big Picture Loans has agreed to an $8.7 million
settlement benefiting certain borrowers.
The Class includes anyone who executed a loan agreement with Big
Picture Loans or Castle Payday between June 22, 2013, and Dec. 20,
2019.
The plaintiffs had alleged Big Picture Loans and Castle Payday had
made and collected loans with higher interest rates than legally
allowed and lending to consumers without having a license, among
other accusations.
Class Members' payouts will depend on the total number of claims
filed, the amount of interest the Class Member paid, and other
factors.
File your claim by Sept. 10, 2021. [GN]
BIODELIVERY SCIENCES: Not Compelled to Show Email in Drachman Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RE: Drachman v. BioDelivery Sciences International,
Inc., C.A. No. 2019-0728-LW (Del. Ch.), Judge Lori W. Will of the
Court of Chancery of Delaware denied the Plaintiffs' First and
Second Motions to Compel.
The litigation concerns two proposals that BioDelivery's Board of
Directors submitted for stockholder approval at its 2018 annual
meeting. The proposals sought to amend BioDelivery's certificate of
incorporation to declassify its Board and change the voting
standard for uncontested director elections from a plurality
standard to a majority voting standard. Under 8 Del. C. Section
242(b), the approval of a majority of the outstanding stock
entitled to vote was required for the proposals to pass.
BioDelivery's proxy advisor, AST Financial, allegedly advised
BioDelivery that the required votes had been obtained, despite a
significant number of broker non-votes. On Aug. 6, 2018,
BioDelivery declared the proposals valid and effectuated the
amendments in a filing with the Delaware Secretary of State,
certifying that they were "adopted in accordance with the
provisions of Section 242."
On July 31, 2019, the Plaintiffs made a pre-suit demand on the
Board, asserting that the vote violated Section 242 and that the
amendments were invalid. On Aug. 30, 2019, the Board rejected the
Demand through its counsel, Goodwin Procter, LLP. The Plaintiffs
filed the litigation on Sept. 11, 2019. The complaint included
three claims: violation of 8 Del. C. Section 242; breach of
fiduciary duty; and a declaratory judgment that the amendments were
not validly approved.
Regarding their second claim, the Plaintiffs alleged that the
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and acted in bad faith
by (a) deeming the Two Proposals approved in violation of the DGCL,
(b) filing the Amendments with the Delaware Secretary of State, (c)
implementing the Amendments and (d) refusing to take appropriate
action in response to the Demand. Before the Defendants responded
to the complaint, the Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment.
On Dec. 6, 2019, the Defendants filed a combined brief in
opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and in
support of their motion to dismiss under Court of Chancery Rule
12(b)(6). The Defendants attached to their brief an Aug. 3, 2018
email exchange between Michelle Brown, Director of Financial
Reporting at BioDelivery, and attorneys from Goodwin Procter,
including partner Robert Puopolo. They asserted in their brief that
the email demonstrates the Board's reliance on the advice of AST
that the proposals had passed. On April 14, 2019, then-Chancellor
Bouchard denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
Discovery ensued. The Plaintiffs demanded that the Defendants
produce an unredacted copy of the email chain that had been
attached to the Defendants' brief. On Sept. 30, 2020, after the
Defendants asserted privilege and refused to produce the unredacted
document, the Plaintiffs filed their first motion to compel. They
argue in the First Motion to Compel that they are entitled to the
unredacted email under the Garner doctrine and because the
Defendants waived privilege by placing the document "at issue."
On Oct. 13, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with
two counts. Count I is the direct breach of fiduciary duty claim
that survived the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Count II is
identical to Count I except that it is styled as a derivative
breach of fiduciary duty claim on behalf of BioDelivery.
During document discovery, the Defendants produced multiple
iterations of the challenged email chain. On April 15, 2021, they
inadvertently produced to the plaintiffs an unredacted version of
the email chain.
It is not clear when the Plaintiffs first reviewed the unredacted
email chain. On April 29, 2021, the counsel for the Plaintiffs sent
the counsel for the Defendants a letter purportedly discussing the
document. That evening, the Defendants told the Plaintiffs that the
document had been produced without redactions inadvertently and
formally clawed it back under Paragraph 19 of the Stipulation and
Order for the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information
entered in this action. The Plaintiffs deleted the email, as
required by that Order. The document was subsequently reproduced
with slightly different redactions from the previously produced
versions.
On May 6, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a second motion to compel,
seeking production of the unredacted email that the Defendants had
clawed back ("Second Motion to Compel"). This time, the Plaintiffs
invoked the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege
and asserted -- again -- that the email could not be withheld as
privileged because it was placed at issue by the Defendants. The
Plaintiffs ask that, if the Court does not direct the Defendants to
produce the document, the document be reviewed in camera.
Discussion
Before Judge Will are two motions to compel. The motions -- filed
by the Plaintiffs on Sept. 30, 2020 and May 6, 2021 -- both seek
production of the same document. The document is an email chain
that was first attached in redacted form as an exhibit to a brief
the defendants filed. The Defendants later inadvertently produced
the document in discovery without redactions, clawed it back, and
reproduced it with slightly different redactions. The parties agree
that the redacted portions of the email are subject to the
attorney-client privilege. They disagree about whether certain
exceptions to the privilege apply and whether privilege has been
waived.
Judge Will explains that under Court of Chancery Rule 26(b),
parties "may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter
that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional
to the needs of the case." One privilege limiting the broad scope
of discovery is the attorney-client privilege, codified in Delaware
Rule of Evidence 502(b), which insulates from discovery
"confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating
the rendition of professional legal services to the client." Unlike
Rule 26, which is intended to facilitate "a disinterested search
for truth" at trial, the attorney-client privilege "promotes
justice by encouraging candor between clients and their attorneys."
But the privilege has limits and, in the case, the Plaintiffs
invoke several.
None of the Plaintiffs' arguments entitle them to an unredacted
version of the document in questio, Judge Will finds. She says,
disclosure is not appropriate under the Garner doctrine because the
Plaintiffs have not exhausted their discovery avenues at this stage
in the case. She finds that the Defendants did not place the legal
advice in the document "at issue" in the litigation. And the Judge
finds that the crime-fraud exception does not apply. Hence, the
First and Second Motions to Compel are denied.
A. The Garner Doctrine
The Garner exception balances 'the privilege's purpose of
encouraging open communication between counsel and client against
the right of a stockholder to understand what advice was given to
fiduciaries who are charged with breaching their duties.'" Delaware
courts have applied the Garner exception sparingly to preserve the
balance between these competing interests.
Judge Will concludes that the Plaintiffs are correct that there are
key aspects of the record that they must develop, including "who
the Defendants consulted with for advice and what they were told."
But it is not "impossible" to determine whether the Defendants
"received and relied on bad legal advice" or "did not care about
complying with the legal requirements of Delaware law" without
accessing the privileged communication.
B. The At Issue Exception
The Plaintiffs next argue that the Defendants waived the
attorney-client privilege because they put the communication "at
issue" when they relied upon a redacted version of that document.
They have made this argument twice -- once in each motion to
compel. The Defendants ask that the Court strike the second
argument because it effectively contravenes the word limit under
Court of Chancery Rule 171(f).
Judge Will holds that it is regrettable that the Plaintiffs made
the same argument in two separate motions. She declines, however,
to strike the second iteration of the argument because (1) it
follows the inadvertent production of the challenged email and
slight alterations to the redactions and (2) the first motion
remained pending for some time through no fault of the Plaintiffs.
The Judge determines that it is obvious that the redacted email is
relevant. It may even be helpful to the Plaintiffs' case. But
relevance is not a basis to invade privilege. The attorney-client
privilege remains intact because the advice of Goodwin Procter has
not been put at issue by the defendants. Even if it had, as with
the Garner exception, the Plaintiffs cannot show that they are
unable to obtain the information from another source.
C. The Crime-Fraud Exception
The Plaintiffs' final argument is that the document falls within
the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. The
Plaintiffs say that the crime-fraud exception applies because the
redacted email is inconsistent with "representations made by the
Defendants and the positions advanced by their counsel in the
case." In other words, the alleged "attempted fraud on the Court"
occurred when the "Defendants redacted their communications with
Goodwin Procter and submitted the email as an exhibit to their
brief seeking to dismiss the case after the Board rejected the
Demand while relying on Goodwin Procter's legal advice.
Judge Will finds that the crime-fraud exception is not applicable
in the case. She says, Rule 502 requires that the advice sought
must be "for the purpose of accomplishing an allegedly fraudulent
scheme." At the earliest, the alleged "fraud" occurred on Dec. 6,
2019 when the Defendants relied on the redacted email in connection
with their dispositive motion. Logically, the Aug. 3, 2018 email
could not have been "in furtherance" of that "fraudulent scheme."
There are no allegations that BioDelivery sought Goodwin Procter's
advice about voting results in 2018 to lie to the court nearly two
years later.
In that regard, the Judge holds, that the case is different from
the cases on which the plaintiffs rely. In one case, the Court
noted in dicta that the crime-fraud exception might be met where
counsel advised its client to undertake intentional spoliation.
Nothing of the sort is alleged in the case. In the other case cited
by the Plaintiffs, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware determined that the crime-fraud exception applied where
there was a "reasonable basis to suspect" that the plaintiff or its
counsel intentionally misrepresented an agreement's creation date
to the court to resolve a dispute over standing. In the instant
case, by contrast, the Defendants' representations could hardly
support a "mere allegation of misconduct," much less a reasonable
basis to suggest intentional fraud on the Court.
In the alternative, the Plaintiffs request that the court review
the email discussion "in camera to determine the applicability of
the crime-fraud exception." Given the absence of a crime or fraud,
or any indication that the relevant email was in furtherance of a
crime or fraud, Judge Will declines to do so.
Conclusion
For the reasons she explained, Judge Will concludes that neither
the so-called Garner doctrine nor the crime-fraud exception to the
attorney-client privilege apply. She also finds that the Defendants
have not waived privilege by placing the document "at issue" or
using the document as a "sword and shield." Therefore, the
Plaintiffs' First and Second Motions to Compel are denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5djuj4mm from Leagle.com.
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Bridges GIPA Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CAROLYN BRIDGES and DANNY COLLINS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE BLACKSTONE GROUP
INC., Case No. 21-L-000695, was removed from the Circuit Court of
St. Clair County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois on September 2, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01091 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act.
The Blackstone Group Inc. is an American alternative investment
management company based in New York, New York. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Martin L. Roth, Esq.
Alyssa C. Kalisky, Esq.
Amelia H. Bailey, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
300 North LaSalle
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 862-2000
Facsimile: (312) 862-2200
E-mail: martin.roth@kirkland.com
alyssa.kalisky@kirkland.com
amelia.bailey@kirkland.com
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Class Action Over Impact of "Birth Alerts"
------------------------------------------------------------------
aptnnews.ca reports that parents who were subjected to a birth
alert in B.C. are being represented in a proposed class action
filed in B.C.'s Supreme Court.
A "birth alert" is when a social worker flags a pregnant person to
hospital staff without their consent, requiring hospital staff to
contact child protection authorities once the baby's born.
These alerts sometimes lead to a newborn being apprehended or
removed from their mother. In B.C., birth alerts resulted in
apprehensions "approximately 28% of the time," according to records
obtained by IndigiNews.
Birth alerts are "issued based on speculative child protection
concerns, often without any supporting evidence," alleges the
statement of claim filed by Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman LLP
(CFM), a Vancouver-based firm.
These alerts are "grounded in discriminatory assumptions regarding
which individuals are likely to be neglectful or abusive parents,"
and they are "disproportionately employed against Indigenous,
racialized, and/or disabled pregnant persons," the claim alleges.
In 2019, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous
Women and Girls called attention to the impact of these alerts on
Indigenous women in its final report.
"Birth alerts are racist and discriminatory and are a gross
violation of the rights of the child, the mother, and the
community," the inquiry found.
In this class action against "Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the
Province of British Columbia, by the Ministry of Children and
Family Development," CFM is alleging that birth alerts are "a
product of the state's colonialist and paternalistic attitude."
The impact of a birth alert is 'lifelong'
Nikida Steel is the proposed representative plaintiff in this class
action.
"Being subject to birth alerts during each of her pregnancies made
her feel 'betrayed and disgusted,'" according to a statement
released by CFM this afternoon.
"Calling out the government for what it did can help to remove the
stigma and shame from other people who have experienced this. I
want to try to hold the government accountable, and to prevent this
type of reprehensible behaviour in the future," says Steel.
Many provinces and territories, including B.C., formally stopped
issuing birth alerts in recent years, but that doesn't mean they
don't continue to impact those who've experienced them.
"It is something that follows you lifelong," says Steel. "The fact
that a birth alert was issued about you continues to affect your
dealing with the system forever."
CFM says it is bringing this case "on behalf of all persons who
were, while pregnant, the subject of a birth alert issued in
British Columbia, including a subclass of all Indigenous,
racialized, and/or disabled class members."
The firm is inviting potential class members to register at
info@cfmlawyers.ca and to contact Jen Winstanley, a partner at CFM,
for more information: 604-331-9539 or jwinstanley@cfmlawyers.ca.
Winstanley encourages anyone who suspects they were subject to a
birth alert to get in touch, even if they aren't sure.
There were at least 444 birth alerts issued in B.C. between Jan. 1,
2018 and Aug. 31, 2019, according to data from the Ministry of
Children and Family Development (MCFD).
Fifty-eight per cent of parents impacted by birth alerts in 2018
were Indigenous.
But many of these parents may not know they've been subject to
birth alerts because, as reported by IndigiNews, the ministry
hasn't told them.
"Our focus since we ended the practice of birth alerts has been
forward looking. We didn't want to retraumatize affected families
by providing notifications of past birth alerts," wrote a
spokesperson to IndigiNews. "Our goal was to ensure the safety of
children by ensuring the family had the supports they needed to
keep kids safe."
Winstanley advises parents who aren't sure whether they've been
subject to a birth alert to request a copy of their health records
from the B.C. government.
"That's how our representative plaintiff was able to confirm that
she has been subject to a birth alert," she says, adding that CFM
can help people file for their records.
Part of a 'national litigation effort'
This proposed class action still needs to be certified by the
courts, and this process can take years, says Winstanley.
Timelines are impacted by a number of factors including "court and
counsel availability," she says. "This one might be a little bit
quicker because we have one defendant and it's provincial (and not
national)."
CFM is working with a group of law firms across the country that
plans to file "additional provincial class proceedings," according
to CFM's press release.
The firm started "actively investigating and structuring a national
litigation plan" earlier this year, after an IndigiNews
investigation revealed records showing that B.C.'s Attorney General
sent a memo to MCFD confirming that birth alerts are "illegal and
unconstitutional."
This revelation makes this case, "a little bit unique," says
Winstanley. "Because we're dealing with admittedly wrongful
contact."
Since beginning their investigation, Winstanley says the team at
CFM has "confirmed that the process was widespread up until it was
discontinued." They've also "spoken to a few women that have been
the subject of birth alerts."
"[We are] making sure everything is very voluntary and confidential
and not putting any pressure on people to come forward," Winstanley
says.
She says her firm will help anyone who comes forward to connect
with culturally-appropriate resources, as needed. To ensure their
process is trauma-informed, she says she's having "extensive
discussions" with Alisa Lombard, a partner at the Indigenous-owned
and operated firm Semanganis Worme Lombard (SWL).
SWL is working with CFM on this case, and Lombard is also working
on a class action to address the forced sterilization of Indigenous
women in Canada.
"We feel this is the type of case that calls out for a real
resolution," says Winstanley. "And we're really hopeful that it's
not going to lead to many years of contested litigation, and sort
of, a denial." [GN]
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of October 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), on Aug. 30 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas captioned Newell v. Cassava
Sciences, Inc., et al., (Case No. 21-cv-760) on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Cassava Sciences,
Inc. ("Cassava" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SAVA) securities between
September 14, 2020 and August 27, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have until October 26, 2021
to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action.
If you suffered a loss on your Cassava investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/cassava-sciences-inc/. You can also
contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
Cassava is a clinical stage biotechnology company. Its lead
therapeutic product candidate is called simufilam (formerly
PTI-125) developed as a treatment for Alzheimer's disease ("AD").
Simufilam purportedly targets an altered form of a protein called
filamin A ("FLNA") in the Alzheimer's brain and reverts it to its
native, healthy conformation, thereby countering the downstream
toxic effects of altered FLNA.
On August 24, 2021, after the market closed, reports emerged about
a citizen petition submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") concerning the accuracy and integrity of
clinical data for simufilam. The petition requested that the FDA
halt Cassava's clinical trials pending a thorough audit of the
publications and data relied upon by the Company. Among other
things, the petition stated that the "[d]etailed analysis of the
western blots [relied on by Cassava to support the connection
between simufilam and Alzheimer's] shows a series of anomalies that
are suggestive of systematic data manipulation and
misrepresentation." It also stated that the methodology for studies
"about Simufilam's effects in experiments conducted on postmortem
human brain tissue . . . defies logic, and the data presented again
have hallmarks of manipulation." The petition further stated that,
after initial analyses of Phase 2b trials found that Simufilam was
ineffective in improving the primary biomarkers endpoint, "Cassava
had these samples analyzed again and this time reported that
Simufilam rapidly and robustly improved a wide array of biomarkers"
and the reanalysis "shows signs of data anomalies or
manipulation."
On August 25, 2021, before the market opened, Cassava issued a
response to the petition, claiming that the allegations regarding
scientific integrity are false and misleading. Among other things,
the Company claimed that the clinical data, which the citizen
petition stated had been reanalyzed to show simufilam was
effective, had been generated by Quanterix Corp. ("Quanterix"), an
independent company, suggesting that the reanalysis was valid.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $36.97, or 32%, to
close at $80.86 per share on August 25, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
On August 27, 2021, before the market opened, Quanterix issued a
statement denying the Company's claims, stating that it "did not
interpret the test results or prepare the data" touted by Cassava.
The same day, Cassava responded to Quanterix's statement, stating
that "Quanterix'[s] sole responsibility with regard to this
clinical study was to perform sample testing, specifically, to
measure levels of p-tau in plasma samples collected from study
subjects."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $12.51, or 17.6%, to
close at $58.34 per share on August 27, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that data underlying the foundational research for
Cassava's product candidates had been manipulated; (2) that
experiments using post-mortem human brain tissue frozen for nearly
10 years was contrary to a basic understanding of neurobiology; (3)
that biomarker analysis for patients treated with simufilam had
been manipulated to conclude that simufilam was effective; (4) that
Quanterix, an independent company, had not interpreted the test
results or prepared the data charts for the biomarker analysis for
patients treated with simufilam; (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, there was a reasonable likelihood that Cassava would
face regulatory scrutiny in connection with the development of
simufilam; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Cassava securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than October 26,
2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]
CBR SYSTEMS: Misrepresents Cord Blood Storage Fees, Cohen Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMY COHEN and KATHARINE VACCARELLA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CBR SYSTEMS, INC.; GI
PARTNERS; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06527-SK
(N.D. Cal., Aug. 24, 2021) is an action alleging that the
Defendants misrepresented the annual fee for their cord blood
storage.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that unbeknownst to the
Plaintiffs, and inconsistent with the Defendants' pervasive
marketing, advertising, and uniform service contract, the annual
fee is not fixed. Rather, the Defendants slyly and substantially
increases the annual fee over time, so that the Plaintiffs are
paying hundreds of additional dollars in excess of the contracted
amount over the course of the cord blood storage. For consumers who
are storing cord blood for more than one child, these hidden and
undisclosed fees could cost them thousands of additional dollars.
And, collectively, these excess storage fees charged to the
Defendants' clients for the cord blood samples over the course of
the cord blood storage translate to tens of millions of dollars or
more in revenue for the Defendants, says the suit.
Contrary to the Defendants' website representation and the promises
of the their service representative, as well as the promise in the
service contract, the Defendants unilaterally increased the
Plaintiffs' annual storage fee, added the suit.
Plaintiffs relied on the representations made by Defendants both in
the contract and in advertising, including representations on the
Defendants' website and from their service representative,
regarding the fixed nature of the annual storage fees. Plaintiffs
would not have signed the contract with the Defendants on the same
terms if the Defendants had disclosed the fact that the annual
storage fee was not actually fixed and that the Defendants intended
to charge the Plaintiffs incrementally increased annual storage
fees.
CBR SYSTEMS, INC. provides umbilical cord blood stem cells. The
Company offers research and development, collecting, processing,
and storing umbilical cord stem cells samples for therapeutic use.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alex R. Straus, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 S. Beverley Drive, PH
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (917) 471-1894
Facsimile: (310) 496-3176
E-mail: astraus@milberg.com
-and-
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
Harper Segui, Esq.
Jonathan Cohen, Esq.
Blake Yagman, Esq.
Erin Ruben, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
Email: rsoffin@milberg.com
hsegui@milberg.com
jcohen@milberg.com
byagman@milberg.com
eruben@miberg.com
CHASE DENNIS: Oct. 15 Deadline for Class Cert. Bid Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE SAMORA,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CHASE
DENNIS EMERGENCY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California Corporation;
TEAM HEALTH HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Case No.
5:20-cv-02027-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order granting the following briefing schedule for Plaintiff's
motion for class certification:
-- Plaintiff's Motion for Class October 15, 2021
Certification due:
-- Defendant's Opposition due: December 3, 2021
-- Plaintiff's Reply Brief due: January 21, 2022
The Parties agree that, to the extent any declarations are
submitted in support of their respective briefs, such declarants
will be made available for deposition within the appropriate
briefing periods. The Parties further agree that the mediation on
November 15, 2021 will remain as scheduled.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 31, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VluByQ at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Plaintiff Julie Samora, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, are:
Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
Sara B. Tosdal, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 531-1900
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
jboxer@maternlawgroup.com
stosdal@maternlawgroup.com
The Attorneys for the defendants Chase Dennis Medical Group, Inc.
and Team Health Holdings, Inc., are:
Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq.
Michael Afar, Esq.
Sofya Perelshteyn, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 551-8313
E-mail: jbrophy@seyfarth.com
mafar@seyfarth.com
sperelsghteyn@sefarth.com
CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Class Settlement in Cotter Suit Wins Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BREANDAN COTTER and JACK DINH, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHECKERS
DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
8:19-cv-1386-VMC-CPT (M.D. Fla.), Judge Virginia M. Hernandez
Covington of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division, issued an Order:
a. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement; and
b. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, Expenses, and Service Awards.
In April 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against
Checkers, alleging multiple causes of action arising from a data
breach affecting Checkers' point-of-sale systems. They alleged that
hackers utilizing malicious software stole copies of customers'
payment card data and other personal information. The malware
remained on Checkers' point-of-sale systems from September 2016
until April 2019.
Before Checkers filed an answer, the parties entered into a
class-wide Settlement Agreement and Release and petitioned the
Court for preliminary approval of the settlement. On June 30, 2020,
the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed
settlement pursuant to the terms of the parties' Settlement
Agreement and directing that notice be given to the settlement
class.
Commencing in July 2020, and pursuant to the notice requirements
set forth in the Settlement Agreement and the Court's preliminary
approval order, the settlement class was notified of the terms of
the proposed Settlement Agreement, of the right of settlement class
members to opt-out, and the right of settlement class members to
object to the Settlement Agreement and to be heard at the final
approval hearing.
In October 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Final Approval
of the Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Costs, and Expenses and Service Awards both of which are unopposed.
The Court referred these motions to U.S. Magistrate Judge
Christopher P. Tuite for a Report and Recommendation, and Judge
Tuite held a hearing on the motions on Dec. 8, 2020.
As Judge Tuite correctly noted in his Report and Recommendation,
during the fall of 2020 and the winter of 2021, the Eleventh
Circuit issued two decisions pertaining to the issue of standing in
the context of data breaches and/or identity theft: Muransky v.
Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 979 F.3d 917 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc)
and Tsao v. Captiva MVP Restaurant Partners, LLC, 986 F.3d 1332
(11th Cir. 2021). In light of these decisions, Judge Tuite
expressed concerns about whether the Plaintiffs had standing to
pursue this action and ordered supplemental briefing on that
issue.
As part of this supplemental briefing, the Plaintiffs submitted
three sworn declarations to the Court. First, the Plaintiffs
submitted a declaration from a representative of the settlement
administrator, stating that of the more than 11,000 claim form
submissions received, 1,665 of those were for out-of-pocket
expenses related to the data breach. Second, they submitted a
declaration from class member Contessa McCormick. Third, the
Plaintiffs submitted a declaration from class member Yolanda
Jackson.
On July 7, 2021, Judge Tuite issued the instant Report and
Recommendation. He rightly pointed out that, in the months between
when this Court issued its preliminary approval of the settlement
and July 2021, four decisions bearing on the issue of standing in
the matter had been issued by the Eleventh Circuit and the U.S.
Supreme Court: Muransky, Tsao, In re Equifax Inc. Customer Data
Security Breach Litigation, 999 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2021), and
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021).
Judge Tuite recommended that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Costs, Expenses, and Service Awards both be denied without
prejudice and that Plaintiffs be allowed to amend their complaint
to address the issue of standing in light of recent decisions
issued by the United States Supreme Court and the Eleventh
Circuit.
Analysis
A. Article III standing
To establish standing under Article III of the Constitution, a
plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that he or she suffered an injury in
fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent, (2)
that the injury was caused by the defendant, and (3) that the
injury would likely be redressed by the requested judicial relief.
Judge Covington finds the description of the relevant case law in
the Report and Recommendation to be thorough and helpful. However,
she must respectfully disagree with the magistrate judge's finding
that the Plaintiffs lack standing. The Judge holds that the
declarations submitted by the Plaintiffs constitute specific
evidence of some misuse of the class members' data, which is
sufficient to demonstrate that all class members -- including the
named Plaintiffs Cotter and Dinh -- face a substantial risk of
identity theft or fraud following the Checkers data breach. This
evidence, she says, distinguishes the instant case from Tsao, where
the named plaintiff "did not point to any specific instances in
which his -- or any other class member's -- identity was stolen,
cards were fraudulently charged, or data was misused."
Having found that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown standing
based on a risk of future harm, the Judge need not address their
other theories of standing, beyond noting that any costs associated
with mitigating that risk would also provide standing, based on her
assessment that the risk was substantial and imminent.
B. The Motion for Final Settlement Approval
Having determined that the Plaintiffs have Article III standing,
Judge Covington turns to the Plaintiffs' motion for final
settlement approval, which is unopposed.
For purposes of the settlement and pursuant to the Final Approval
Order and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and (e), the
Judge certifies a class in the matter defined as follows: All
residents of the United States who made a credit or debit card
purchase at any Affected Restaurant during the period of the Data
Breach Incident.
The Judge finds, for settlement purposes only, that: (a) the
Settlement Class is so numerous that joinder of all Settlement
Class Members would be impracticable; (b) there are issues of law
and fact common to the Settlement Class; (c) the claims of the
Representative Plaintiffs are typical of and arise from the same
operative facts and seek similar relief as the claims of the
Settlement Class Members; (d) the Representative Plaintiffs and
Settlement Class Counsel will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the Settlement Class as the Representative Plaintiffs
have no interests antagonistic to or in conflict with the
Settlement Class and have retained experienced and competent
counsel to prosecute this matter on behalf of the Settlement Class;
(e) questions of law or fact common to Settlement Class Members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members;
and (f) a class action and class settlement is superior to other
methods available for a fair and efficient resolution of this
controversy.
Plaintiffs Breandan Cotter and Jack Dinh are designated and
appointed as the Representative Plaintiffs. Judge Covington finds
that the Representative Plaintiffs are similarly situated to absent
Class Members and therefore typical of the Class and will be
adequate Settlement Class Representatives.
She also finds that the following counsel are experienced and
adequate counsel and are designated as the Settlement Class Counsel
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g): Tina Wolfson and
Bradley K. King of Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC, Jean Sutton Martin of
Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, Abbas Kazerounian and
Jason Ibey, Esq. of Kazerouni Law Group, APC.
As to the Class Notice, Judge Covington concludes that settlement
class members were provided with the best practicable notice under
the circumstances. Despite that opportunity, there were no
objections to the settlement and only 19 requests for exclusion,
which speaks favorably of the settlement terms.
Having considered the factors set forth in Rule 23(e)(2) and
Bennett, Judge Covington finds the settlement to be fair,
reasonable, and adequate. She finds no indication of fraud or
collusion behind the settlement. Furthermore, the class
representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the
class.
The relief provided for the class is adequate. The parties have
agreed on the following relief: (1) cash payment of up to $5,000
per class member for reimbursement of documented out-of-pocket
expenses incurred as a result of the data breach; (2) four Checkers
vouchers of $5 each for any class member who submitted a valid and
timely claim form; and (3) Checkers' agreement to adopt and
maintain certain remedial measures meant to better protect
customers' Personal Information in the future.
Notwithstanding the certification of the foregoing Settlement Class
and appointment of the Representative Plaintiffs for purposes of
effecting the Settlement, if the Order is reversed on appeal or the
Settlement is terminated or is not consummated for any reason, the
foregoing certification of the Settlement Class and appointment of
the Representative Plaintiffs will be void and of no further
effect, and the parties to the proposed Settlement will be returned
to the status each occupied before entry of the Order without
prejudice to any legal argument that any of the parties to the
Settlement might have asserted but for the Settlement.
Within the time period set forth in Article XII of the Settlement
Agreement, the relief provided for in the Settlement Agreement will
be made available to the various Settlement Class Members
submitting valid Claim Forms, pursuant to the terms and conditions
of the Settlement Agreement.
For these reasons, Judge Covington grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.
C. Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, Expenses, and Awards
The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $575,000 in attorneys'
fees and expenses, which it represents is less than 3% of the
first-tier monetary benefits made available to the class.
Judge Covington awards the Plaintiffs' the requested $575,000 in
attorneys' fees and costs. She is satisfied that the litigation of
these claims would have presented serious risks, given the
ever-developing law surrounding data breach cases, the amount of
claims at issue, and the strength of Checkers' opposition. In a
related vein, the Judge finds that the class counsel took on
considerable risk by agreeing to pursue this action on a purely
contingent basis. Finally, the requested fee comports with fees
awarded in similar cases.
One final matter remains before the Court -- the Plaintiffs'
request for "service awards" in the amount of $2,500 each. The
Eleventh Circuit recently ruled in Johnson v. NPAS Sols., LLC, 975
F.3d 1244, 1257, 1260 (11th Cir. 2020), that incentive or service
awards -- given to class representatives in order to compensate
them for their services and the risks they incurred on behalf of
the class -- are prohibited. Judge Covington declines to authorize
the requested service awards in the case because such awards are
not allowed under Johnson, which is the binding law in the
Circuit.
However, the Judge says, it is important to note that the mandate
has been withheld in Johnson and a ruling for rehearing en banc is
pending. Accordingly, she follows the lead of the sister courts in
the Circuit and denies the Plaintiffs' request for service awards
without prejudice, but the Court will retain jurisdiction for the
limited purpose of revisiting the denial of service awards should
Johnson ultimately be overruled.
Conclusion
Thus, upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Tuite's
Report and Recommendation as well as the Plaintiffs' objections
thereto, Judge Covington declines to adopt the Report and
Recommendation for the reasons she explained, and the Report and
Recommendation is rejected. She grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and grants in
part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for
Attorneys' Fees, Costs, Expenses, and Service Awards. Specifically,
the Plaintiffs' request for $575,000 in combined attorneys' fees
and costs is granted but their request for service awards is denied
without prejudice.
The action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to
close the case.
The Court will retain jurisdiction for the limited purpose of
revisiting the denial of service awards, pending the ultimate
resolution of the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Johnson. The Court
declines to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement
agreement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3m8xw97p from Leagle.com.
CO-OPERATORS GENERAL: Court Certifies COVID-19 Business Claims Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that Ontario's Superior Court of Justice
has certified a class-action lawsuit against fourteen insurance
companies that denied business interruption claims related to
COVID-19.
The class action, launched by several small businesses including a
suit store, a smoothie shop and a dance studio, claims businesses
across Canada suffered billions of dollars in losses after they
were forced to close because of the pandemic.
"The certification of this important claim will allow business
owners, large and small, to recover the losses they suffered due to
the pandemic," said Kirk Baert, a partner at Koskie Minsky LLP in
an email.
Koskie Misky brought the class action forward along with Merchant
Law Group LLP.
To be part of the class action, a business has to have filed a
business interruption claim with one of the defendants by Aug. 31
for business losses related to the virus specifically affecting
their premises, or from the order of a civil authority, said
Baert.
According to court filings, insurance companies including the
Co-operators General Insurance Company and Intact Financial Corp.
have denied business interruption claims in part because the
coverage requires physical loss or damage to the property, which
they argue the presence of a virus on the property and government
orders restricting operations don't count towards.
The class action certified on Aug. 20 by Justice Edward Belobaba
against the group of insurers is separate from other class action
lawsuits certified in July against the Canadian subsidiary of
UK-based Aviva plc.
Aviva, which faces class action lawsuits led by a windows company,
a branch of the Royal Canadian Legion and a denturist, has been
singled out because it offers more coverage related to situations
like the pandemic than the other 14 insurers being sued.
According to court filings, unlike the others, it specifically
offers coverage for business income loss caused by restricted
access to the property because of government orders related to an
outbreak of a contagious or infectious disease, as well as coverage
for negative publicity.
In an affidavit, Aviva's chief technical underwriter said the
restricted access policy isn't covered by provincewide shutdown
orders, and the negative publicity clause doesn't cover losses
arising from global pandemics.
Aviva Canada said in a statement that it is sympathetic to the
difficulties caused by COVID-19, and has supported commercial
customers with a variety of short-to-medium term relief measures,
but that its coverage doesn't extend to the current pandemic.
"As is the case with all major insurers, we have always maintained
that there is no coverage for business interruption losses caused
by the Covid-19 pandemic under our standard policies."
Intact Financial Corp. said it wouldn't comment because the case is
before the court, while Co-operators did not respond to a request
for comment. [GN]
COLORADO: Federal Class Action Lawsuit Draws Attention to Children
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marianne Goodland at gazette.com reports that BB is 16. Instead of
going to school or hanging out with friends, she's been living in
the emergency room of a local hospital since July 1.
You read that right: more than two months, because the state has
been unable to find an appropriate residential treatment program
for her in Colorado.
She's one of three plaintiffs in a federal class-action lawsuit
filed with the backing of Mental Health Colorado and against the
Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing. Mental
Health Colorado said in a press release that the state is failing
to provide federally mandated services under Medicaid for children
diagnosed with a mental health or behavioral health disorder. In
those cases, the press release said, a doctor has recommended
Intensive Home and Community-Based Services (IHCBS) to correct or
ameliorate their disorder, but the state has been unable to find
such placements.
A response from HCPF is pending.
The purpose of the IHCBS is to serve children, youth and families
with the most disabling mental illnesses or serious emotional
disturbances in community settings rather than institutional
settings.
"The urgency of human distress is not often enough felt by health
care systems and governments which are often stuck in quagmires of
bureaucracy," said Vincent Atchity, president & CEO of Mental
Health Colorado. "Sometimes it takes a lawsuit to galvanize
much-needed action for sake of the health and well-being of those
who are ignored and neglected. Immediate action is needed,
especially when we are failing our state's future - our children."
BB has multiple diagnoses, including PTSD, reactive attachment and
depressive disorders. She's experienced suicidal ideations,
including tying sheets around her neck and other harms to herself
too graphic to describe. She's been psychiatrically hospitalized
seven times in the past year and has had 17 emergency room
admissions.
Another plaintiff, AA, a 13-year-old boy who has been
psychiatrically hospitalized since March, has been diagnosed with a
long list of mental disorders, complicated by possible prenatal
drug exposure and other early trauma. He's got a history of
assaultive behavior toward family, staff and school peers,
including threats to harm or kill others. He also has been awaiting
placement in a residential treatment facility, but the state has
been unable to find a placement for him.
The lawsuit points out these services have been provided to others
with disabilities - primarily those with intellectual and
developmental disabilities (IDD)- but denies the same to the
plaintiffs and others in their situation. The issue over services
to IDD clients has long been a sticking point for the General
Assembly, which pledged to see the waiting list for those services
to IDD clients eliminated by 2020. At the beginning of the 2021-22
fiscal year, however, close to 3,000 people are still on that list.
In the 2021-22 budget, the state will spent $15.5 million to move
667 Medicaid IDD clients off the wait list. HCPF's 2021-22 budget
is $13.2 billion, with the largest source more than $8 billion in
federal funds, including from Medicaid.
But the state, according to the lawsuit, prefers to rely on
hospitals, emergency rooms and other acute care facilities rather
than the more appropriate placements in residential treatment
facilities.
"The State of Colorado system of mental health care for children is
so weak and uncoordinated that most children are released from
facilities with little or ineffective follow-up community mental
health care," the lawsuit asserts. Services offered after discharge
consist of little more than "minimal medication management and
outpatient counseling once a week for one hour, which is inadequate
for a child with significant behavioral and emotional problems."
As a result, children and families are thrown back into crisis, the
lawsuit said, forced to repeat the cycle of institutionalization.
Former state Sen. Moe Keller, now vice president of public policy
and strategic initiatives for Mental Health Colorado, said these
children with very complex needs are extremely difficult to place.
"We do not have a facility in the state that can take a child who
has autism, developmental disabilities, behavior disorders like
depression or anxiety plus very aggressive behavior." Those kinds
of facilities are very expensive and need a highly skilled
workforce.
The state has lost a lot of residential centers for a variety of
reasons, including that they couldn't make a profit. However, the
last residential facility, in Pueblo County, was shut down by the
state in 2017 because of hundreds of complaints of abuse. So the
solution has been to send these children out of state, to
Pennsylvania and Utah, for example, which is hard on families,
Keller said.
"If you don't have a residential facility or inpatient type
facility, your only option is a community response," Keller said,
which includes services located in the community. "It has to be
very intensive; it's not good enough to say a couple of hours a
week. You have to find respite care for the family and a fallback
plan for the youngster. That lack of wide range of care is a piece
that parents are frustrated with. They're worn out and can't take
it. They ask Medicaid for the services, and Medicaid is required to
pay for them."
Keller also noted that complicating Colorado's situation is TABOR
implications. Half of Medicaid is general fund; the other half is
federal funding. "Increasing the amount of services will require a
look at how the funding works against the TABOR limit," she said.
Children's Hospital Colorado declares state of emergency over
mental health, suicide
Last May, Children's Hospital declared a state of emergency in
youth mental health, pointing out that suicide attempts in 2021
have been the number one reason in many weeks for visits to their
emergency rooms. The news release also pointed out that their staff
are working every hour to find placements for children with mental
health issues.
"At a time when we are seeing volumes increase, severity increase
and overall need, the system that is meant to be in place to serve
these kids does not only not exist, but those who are attempting to
do this work are currently underwater," said Heidi Baskfield,
Children's Colorado's vice president for population health and
advocacy. [GN]
CONFIDENTIAL GENTLEMEN'S: Exotic Dancer Sues Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
dispatch.com reports that in the years she worked as a stripper at
Confidential Gentlemen's Club, Unique Robinson claimed she never
was paid any hourly wages.
On top of that, she and the other dancers say they had to pay a
house fee and other kickbacks amounting to $100 or more each night
and shared tips with managers and other workers.
Now, she has filed a federal lawsuit in Columbus against the club
and is seeking to declare the case a class-action involving more
than 50 current and former dancers at the Far East Side club.
The case is the latest in a string of cases against strip clubs
across the country. Many allege similar patterns at clubs that
classify dancers as independent contractors who receive no wages
from the club while being forced to pay various fees to the club,
bouncers, managers and others.
Are dancers at strip clubs employees or independent contractors?
"Ms. Robinson believes that if the club is going to make her and
the dancers follow the clubs rules and policies and treat her and
the other dancers like employees, the club should have followed the
law and paid her and the other dancers minimum wage plus tips like
employees in all other tipped industries receive," said her
attorney, Gregg Greenberg of Silver Spring, Maryland.
"Ms. Robinson believes the club took advantage of her and the other
dancers when they stole their tips and did not pay the minimum wage
as required by the law."
The club could not be reached for comment, and Greenberg said
Robinson did not want to make herself available for an interview.
Robinson and the other dancers are seeking to recover lost wages,
the money they paid to the club and other costs, according to the
suit. Greenberg said a similar case he handled in Maryland led to
dancers receiving between $40,000 and $60,000 each.
Robinson danced at the club at 1962 Lake Club Dr. from 2017 through
March 2021, according to the lawsuit. She typically worked four to
six shifts per week totaling 30 to 40 hours a week.
The club controlled all aspects of her job, including prices on
private and semiprivate dances, dance specials and other
promotions, according to the complaint.
Strip clubs not alone in classifying workers as independent
contractors
Treating dancers as independent contractors is common in the
industry, said Michael LeRoy, a law professor at the University of
Illinois who has tracked the rising number of workers classified as
independent contractors.
"What's happening to them is a window into what's happening with
white-collar jobs," he said.
LeRoy released a study in 2017 of lawsuits filed from 2000 to 2015
against strip clubs in which workers were denied wages and
work-related reimbursements because they were classified as
independent contractors. These workers also had to share tips and
pay fees to the clubs to the point where one worker actually owed
the club more than she earned.
Of the 75 cases, judges found that in 72 of them, the dancers were
misclassified as independent contractors.
LeRoy said he's gotten no indication that the industry has changed
since he did the study.
LeRoy began tracking the cases of the dancers when they started
cropping up with other wage cases involving cable installers and
rideshare drivers, for example. He said the issue could extend to
other industries such as cleaning services, construction and health
care.
"The key moment occurred when I read rideshare operator cases
side-by-side with dancer cases and noticed similarities in their
business models -- especially how these firms shifted business
costs to these workers," he wrote in the study.
Businesses that use independent contractors tout the freedom
allowed the workers but ignore the fact that such arrangements mean
these businesses aren't paying Social Security and Medicare taxes,
workers' compensation premiums and benefits, LeRoy said.
"Many of these gig jobs have questionable arrangements with their
workers," he said. [GN]
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Cert. Bid Deadline Extended to Sept. 10
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE CORKER d/b/a RANCHO
ALOHA; et al; v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington
corporation; et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00290-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik entered an order granting the motion
for extension of class certification Deadline.
The case schedule in the case is amended, extending the deadline
for Plaintiffs' class certification motion by 14 days to September
10, 2021.
Costco Wholesale is an American multinational corporation which
operates a chain of membership-only big-box retail stores. As of
2020, Costco was the fifth largest retailer in the world, and the
world's largest retailer of choice and prime beef, organic foods,
rotisserie chicken, and wine as of 2016.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kXCjYL at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class, are:
Joshua M. Howard, Esq.
Nathan T. Paine, Esq.
Paul Richard Brown, Esq.
Daniel T. Hagen, Esq.
Andrew W. Durland, Esq.
Joshua M. Paine, Esq.
KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL, P.S.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 223-1313
E-mail: pbrown@karrtuttle.com
npaine@karrtuttle.com
dhagen@karrtuttle.com
adurland@karrrtuttle.com
jhoward@karrtuttle.com
- and -
Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
Daniel E. Seltz, Esq.
Andrew Kaufman, Esq.
Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
E-mail: jlichtman@lchb.com
dseltz@lchb.com
akaufman@lchb.com
msobol@lchb.com
CRACKER BARREL: Seeks to Stay Conditional Cert. Briefing
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ashley Gillespie, et al.,
v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., the Defendant asks the
Court to enter an order staying further briefing and consideration
of Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification until after the
Court rules on Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and
dismiss.
Upon beginning their employment with Cracker Barrel, the Plaintiffs
Ashley Gillespie, Tonya Miller, Tami Brown, and Sarah Mangano
agreed via a valid and enforceable Arbitration Agreement to bring
any claims they may have against Cracker Barrel via individual
arbitration.
In direct violation of their agreement, the Plaintiffs filed their
Complaint in this Court, a forum and venue which is inappropriate
under the Arbitration Agreement and to which Cracker Barrel has not
consented. To address this issue, Cracker Barrel has filed its
motion to compel arbitration and dismiss (Arbitration Motion),
which is currently pending before the Court. While the Arbitration
Motion is pending, a motion from Plaintiffs for Conditional
Certification is also pending before the Court. The current
deadline for Cracker Barrel to respond to Plaintiff'S Motion is
August 30.
Cracker Barrel is an American chain of restaurant and gift stores
with a Southern country theme. The company was founded by Dan Evins
in 1969; its first store was in Lebanon, Tennessee.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 30, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38DKSSM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nitin Sud, Esq.
SUD LAW P.C.
6750 West Loop South, Suite 920
Bellaire, TX 77401
- and -
Monika Sud-Devaraj, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MONIKA SUD-DEVARAJ, PLLC
141 E. Palm Lane, Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85004
The Defendant is represented by:
William W. Drury, Esq.
Miles M. Masog, Esq.
RENAUD COOK DRURY MESAROS, PA
One North Central, Suite 900
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4417
Telephone: (602) 307-9900
Facsimile: (602) 307-5853
E-mail: docket@rcdmlaw.com
mmasog@rcdmlaw.com
- and -
James M. Coleman, Esq.
Jason D. Friedman, Esq.
CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
12500 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 300
Fairfax, VA 22033-3804
Telephone: (571) 522-6111
Facsimile: (571) 522-6101
E-mail: jcoleman@constangy.com
jfriedman@constangy.com
CREDIT CONTROL: Dixon Seeks Extension to File Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES DIXON, KENNETH
CHRISTOPHER, and LILLIAN NESS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. CREDIT CONTROL, LLC, Case No.
1:21-CV-00466-WO-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order relieving them from the 90-day deadline for filing
motion for class certification and setting deadline after receipt
of Joint Rule 26(f) report.
The Plaintiffs commenced action June 8, 2021 against Credit Control
for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and North
Carolina Debt Collection Act.
On June 21, 2021, Counsel for Defendant executed waiver of the
service of summons. The Defendant filed an Answer on August 20,
2021.
On August 30, 2021, Counsel for Plaintiffs contacted Counsel for
Defendant for consent to the Court modifying the 90-day period in
LR 23.1(b). The Defendant consents to the relief requested of
extending the deadline to move for class certification and reserves
all objections as to the propriety of certification.
Credit Control is licensed debt collection agency.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated August 30, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DL9pDG at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
S. Michael Dunn, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Facsimile (919) 600-5035
E-mail: sharris@milberg.com
pwallace@milberg.com
michael.dunn@milberg.com
DANIEL MULLINS: Esprits Seek Time Extension to File Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLENN ESPRIT and SONNEL
ESPRIT, v. DANIEL MULLINS TRUCKING, INC., Case No.
8:21-cv-00855-VMC-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order extending the motion for class certification
deadline.
The Plaintiffs respectfully request an extension of 45 additional
days to file their motion for class certification with a new
deadline date of October 15, 2021.
The Plaintiffs do not seek an extension of any other deadlines
contained in the Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order,
including trial and pretrial deadlines.
On April 9, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their lass complaint and
demand for Jury Trial. On May 27, 2021, the Court entered the case
management and scheduling order. The Parties are in the process of
discussing a possible resolution of the claims of the named
Plaintiffs and require additional time to exhaust settlement
discussions.
Daniel Mullins Trucking is a family-owned and operated trucking
company that serves Central Florida.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 30, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38CdT1f at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory A. Owens, Esq.
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC
16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
Lutz, FL 33558
Telephone: (727) 254-5255
Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
E-mail: greg@fgbolaw.com
wolf@fgbolaw.com
DANSKE BANK: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on
August 25, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit unanimously affirmed the dismissal of a putative class
action against a Danish bank (the "Company") and certain of its
former officers and directors alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.
Plaintiffs alleged misstatements and omissions concerning the
Company's anti-money laundering ("AML") controls and protocols.
Plumbers & Steamfitters Local v. Danske Bank, No. 20-3231 (2d Cir.
Aug. 25, 2021). The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal for
failure to allege an actionable misrepresentation or a scheme to
defraud investors.
In 2016, the Danish financial regulator announced that it had fined
the Company for AML deficiencies at its Estonian branch. This
announcement garnered significant press and triggered
investigations by European regulators. In 2017, the Company
announced that deficiencies in controls and governance had made it
possible to use its Estonian branch for money laundering. In
September 2018, the Company, following an independent
investigation, announced that the volume of suspicious transactions
through the Estonian branch was higher than previously known and
renounced all profits derived from these transactions.
Plaintiffs purchased the Company's American Depositary Receipts
("ADRs") between March and June 2018. Plaintiffs alleged five
categories of misstatements or omissions: (i) the Company's
financial statements, which allegedly included revenue derived from
illegal transactions, (ii) the Company's statements about a
goodwill impairment related to its Estonian branch in 2014, (iii)
the Company's statement about its whistleblower reporting system in
2015, (iv) the Company's statement that it did not expect the
outcomes of related lawsuits or inspections to materially impact
its financial position, and (v) the Company's statements about its
AML compliance.
The Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the Company misled
investors by releasing financial statements that included revenue
from allegedly ill-gotten profits from the Estonian branch without
also disclosing what it knew about possible money laundering.
According to the Court, "companies do not have a duty to disclose
uncharged, unadjudicated wrongdoing," and "accurately reported
financial statements do not automatically become misleading by the
company's non-disclosure of suspected misconduct that may have
contributed to the financial results." The Court also rejected the
claim that the financial statements were per se misleading because
they violated international accounting standards by including
revenue derived from unenforceable contracts with clients who
allegedly used the Estonian branch to launder money. Because
plaintiffs "identif[ied] no law or contractual provision that would
render the deposit contracts unenforceable," plaintiffs failed to
allege a violation of international accounting standards. The Court
also held that statements that the Company strove to conduct its
business "in accordance with internationally recognise principles
in the area[] of . . . anti-corruption" and "condemn[ed] . . .
money laundering" were puffery, and too vague to be actionable. The
Court noted that the Company "claimed no particular acts of
compliance" and that no reasonable investor would "weigh these
generic statements in its investment calculus."
The Court rejected arguments that the Company misled investors (i)
by describing its 2014 goodwill impairment write-down as "purely
technical" when it was allegedly related to the decision to wind
down the Estonian branch's non-resident portfolio, and (ii) by
stating, in a 2015 corporate responsibility report, that three
whistleblower cases reported through an anonymous system were
appropriately concluded, although the independent investigation
concluded that a whistleblower report made directly to executives
was handled improperly. The Court held that even if these
statements were misleading, they would have been immaterial because
the Company made the statements several years before plaintiffs
purchased the Company's ADRs. Prior to plaintiffs' purchase of the
ADRs, the Company repeatedly disclosed AML deficiencies at its
Estonian branch and financial regulators announced investigations
into the Estonian branch's activities. Given these intervening
disclosures, the Court found it implausible that the alleged
omissions "significantly altered the total mix of information."
Similarly, the Court held that the Company's statement that it did
not expect Estonia-related investigations and lawsuits to
materially impact its financial position was inactionable because
plaintiffs purchased ADRs three weeks before the statement was
made.
Finally, the Second Circuit considered plaintiffs' claim that the
Company violated subsections (a) and (c) of Rule 10b-5, which
prohibit "employ[ing] any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,"
and "engag[ing] in any act, practice, or course of business which
operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit." To maintain a such
claim, the Court noted that a plaintiff must specify "what
deceptive or manipulative acts were performed, which defendants
performed them, when the acts were performed, and the effect the
scheme had on investors in the securities at issue." Plaintiffs
failed to do so because "money-laundering at a single branch in
Estonia cannot alone establish" a deceptive scheme. A connection to
the purchase or sale of securities at a minimum also is required
but was not alleged. [GN]
DETROIT, MI: Court Narrows Claims in Lockard Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS LOCKARD and ADAM
SANTIAGO, v. CITY OF DETROIT, MATTHEW BRAY, and REGINALD BEASLEY,
Case No. 2:18-cv-13045-PDB-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Paul D.
Borman entered an order concludng that the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment and to dismiss is:
1. denied as to the Fourth Amendment claim against the
Defendant Matthew Bray;
2. granted as to the Fourth Amendment claim against
Defendant Reginald Beasley; and
3. granted the Municipal Liability Monell claim against the
City of Detroit.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 31, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tkulwk at no extra charge.[CC]
DIDI GLOBAL: Kaplan Fox Reminds of September 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (www.kaplanfox.com) has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging securities law violations against
DiDi Global Inc. ("DiDi" or the "Company") (NYSE: DIDI), the
Company's Chairman of the Board and CEO Will Wei Cheng, CFO Alan
Yue Zhuo, the underwriters of the Company's June 2021 initial
public offering ("IPO"), and certain Company Directors that signed
or authorized the signing of the offering documents for the IPO.
On June 30, 2021, DiDi conducted its IPO by selling 316.8 million
ADSs at $14.00 per ADS.
On July 2, 2021, China's internet regulator, the Cyberspace
Administration of China (CAC), announced that it had launched a
review of DiDi, accusing the Company of illegally collecting user
data. Reportedly, the regulator also ordered that the DiDi app be
removed from Apple's App Store and that DiDi stop adding new users
while the review is conducted. Following this news, the price of
DiDi's shares declined by 5.3% to close at $15.53 per share on July
2, 2021.
Then, on Sunday July 5, 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that
"[w]eeks before Didi Global, Inc. went public in the U.S., China's
cybersecurity watchdog suggested the Chinese ride-hailing giant
delay its initial public offering and urged it to conduct a
thorough self-examination of its network security, according to
people with knowledge of the matter." Following this news, DiDi's
shares fell $3.04 per share, or 19.6%, to close at $12.49 per share
on July 6, 2021.
Finally, on July 22, 2021, Bloomberg published an article entitled
"China Weighs Unprecedented Penalty for Didi After U.S. IPO" which
reported, in part, that "Chinese regulators are considering
serious, perhaps unprecedented, penalties for Didi Global Inc.
after its controversial initial public offering in July." Following
this news, DiDi's share price fell $3.44 per share, nearly 30%,
over the next two trading days to close at $8.06 per share on July
23, 2021.
If you are a member of the proposed Class because you purchased
DiDi securities in and/or traceable to the offering documents for
the IPO or between June 30, 2021 and July 21, 2021, you may move
the court no later than September 7, 2021 to serve as a lead
plaintiff for the purported class. You need not seek to become a
lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery. If you
would like to discuss the complaint or our investigation, please
contact us by emailing pmayer@kaplanfox.com or by calling
646-315-9003.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, with offices in New York, San
Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New Jersey, has many years of
experience in prosecuting investor class actions. For more
information about Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, you may visit our
website at www.kaplanfox.com. If you have any questions about this
Notice, your rights, or your interests, please contact:
Jeffrey P. Campisi
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, New York 10022
(212) 329-8571
E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
Laurence D. King
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
Oakland, California 94612
(415) 772-4704
Fax: (415) 772-4707
E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com [GN]
DRAFTKINGS INC: Shareholders Vie For Lead Plaintiff Position
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders in DraftKings have triggered competing class action
lawsuits against the firm following June's controversial Hindenburg
Research report into its SBTech subsidiary. Separate legal
documents have been filed with the US District Court Southern
District of New York from six law firms, all of which have been
actively contacting DraftKings shareholders since June. [GN]
DUPAGE MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
mdjonline.com reports that national plaintiffs' law firm Keller
Lenkner LLC filed a class action lawsuit against DuPage Medical
Group (DMG) on behalf of patients whose sensitive medical
information was stolen in a massive data breach.
On behalf of two patients as class representatives, the complaint
alleges negligence, breach of contract, and violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, among
other allegations. In the first lawsuit filed as a result of this
data breach, Keller Lenkner seeks to obtain compensation and
further protections for victims as well as improvements to DMG's
data security systems.
DMG, Illinois' largest independent physicians group, revealed on
August 30 that "unauthorized actors" accessed its network in July,
exposing highly sensitive personal information and medical records
of nearly 600,000 patients. The compromised information includes
names, addresses, dates of birth, diagnosis codes, medical
procedure data, treatment dates, social security numbers, and other
protected health information as defined by HIPAA.
Keller Lenkner's complaint alleges that DMG's inadequate
safeguarding of its patients' information led to the unauthorized
access, and that DMG then failed to provide timely and adequate
notice of what information was accessed and stolen. It also alleges
that, as a result of the unauthorized access and DMG's delayed
discovery of the breach, patients have suffered ascertainable
losses, including the loss of the value in their private and
confidential information, loss of benefit of their contractual
bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their time
incurred to remedy the effects of the data breach.
"The patients harmed in this data breach are now at serious,
imminent risk of fraud and identity theft," Keller Lenkner Partner
Seth Meyer said, "DMG failed to take the necessary steps to secure
private, sensitive information entrusted to them by their patients.
On behalf of our clients, we intend to hold DMG accountable for
putting hundreds of thousands of patients' information at risk."
In addition to compensatory damages and reimbursement of
out-of-pocket costs, plaintiffs seek improvements to DMG's data
security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit
monitoring services funded by DMG.
Keller Lenkner leads class actions throughout the nation on behalf
of thousands of individuals whose sensitive personal information
has been stolen. "We hope our work across this practice has a
lasting impact to ensure that consumers' interests are protected in
these situations long into the future," Meyer said.
Keller Lenkner attorneys representing the plaintiffs include Meyer
and Associate Alex Dravillas. Todd S. Garber of Finkelstein,
Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber LLP is co-counsel on behalf of
the plaintiffs.
The action is Hestrup & Peiss v. DuPage Medical Group. Ltd. d/b/a
DuPage Medical Group, No. 2021L000937 and is filed in the 18th
Judicial Circuit Court, DuPage County.
About Keller Lenkner
Keller Lenkner LLC represents plaintiffs in complex litigation
matters in federal and state courts throughout the nation. The firm
acts for clients in many types of cases, including class and mass
actions, arbitrations, and multi-district litigation matters. Its
team includes four former law clerks at the Supreme Court of the
United States and former partners and associates from the country's
leading law firms. Since its founding in 2018, the firm has secured
results for more than 100,000 clients.[GN]
FLO HEALTH: Faces Consolidated Lawsuit Over Fertility-Tracking App
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Merken at Reuters reports that Flo Health Inc is facing a
consolidated class action complaint accusing the period and
fertility-tracking app developer of sharing users' sensitive health
information with third parties without app users' knowledge.
The lawsuit, filed in California federal court, also named the
alleged third parties - Facebook Inc, Alphabet Inc's Google, and
data analytics companies Flurry Inc and AppsFlyer Inc - as
defendants.
Flo Health, through its counsel from Dechert, declined on Friday to
comment on the pending litigation. Lawyers for Facebook, Google,
Flurry and AppsFlyer, of the law firms Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
Willkie Farr & Gallagher, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Latham &
Watkins, respectively, didn't immediately respond to requests for
comment.
The newly filed action brings together plaintiffs from seven
proposed class actions filed against Flo Health earlier this year.
The first complaint stemming from the alleged unlawful data
disclosure came after the U.S. Federal Trade Commission announced a
settlement with Flo Health in January.
Users of the women's health app hand over personal information to
Flo Health, including "intimate details" about sexual health and
menstrual cycles, among other things, to use the app, the complaint
said.
Flo Health allegedly violated users' privacy by disclosing that
information to third parties through software development kits
(SDKs) incorporated into its app, despite the company's privacy
policies and "public assurances" that it would not share data, the
complaint said. In using the third parties' SDKs, Flo Health
transmitted the personal information back to other defendants,
which allegedly "knew that the data collected and received from Flo
Health included intimate health data" but didn't stop that because
the data is "vital to their business," such as for marketing and
data analytics purposes, according to the complaint.
The lawsuit asserts several claims against Flo Health, including
invasion of privacy, breach of contract, and violation of the
federal Stored Communications Act. The plaintiffs accuse the other
companies of "aiding and abetting" Flo Health's alleged practices,
among other claims, including a Federal Wiretap Act claim against
Facebook, Google and Flurry.
Plaintiffs' counsel filed a separate motion Thursday seeking the
appointment of lawyers from three firms as interim co-lead counsel.
The filing touts the data privacy, consumer protection and complex
class action experience of the proposed leaders, and highlights the
proposed structure as reflecting a "diverse slate of attorneys."
Carol Villegas of Labaton Sucharow, Diana Zinser of Spector Roseman
& Kodroff and Christian Levis of Lowey Dannenberg are seeking the
leadership roles.
The proposed leaders "embody the diversity necessary to vindicate
claims for women whose private intimate health data was disclosed
without authorization," the lawyers wrote. Villegas, Zinser and
Levis didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
The case is Frasco v. Flo Health Inc, U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, No. 3:21-cv-00757-JD.
For the plaintiffs: Carol Villegas of Labaton Sucharow, Diana
Zinser of Spector Roseman & Kodroff and Christian Levis of Lowey
Dannenberg. [GN]
FORD MOTOR: S.D. California Trims Claims in Lessin's Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM LESSIN, CAROL SMALLEY, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FORD
MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.: 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG (S.D.
Cal.), Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California grants in part and denies in
part the Ford's motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaint or in the alternative, to strike the nationwide class
allegations.
Background
The matter involves alleged latent defects -- which the Plaintiffs
refer to as the "Death Wobble" -- in Ford's F-250 and F-350 trucks.
The Plaintiffs allege this defect causes abnormal and premature
wearing and/or loosening of the suspension parts, and results in
"violent shaking," causing drivers to lose control of the Vehicles,
and difficulty steering during their operation under normal driving
conditions or speeds.
The Complaint was first filed in June 2019, and Ford moved to
dismiss on Aug. 1, 2019. The Plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Complaint ("FAC") on Sept. 3, 2019, which mooted out Ford's motion.
Ford then filed a second motion to dismiss the FAC, which the Court
granted in part and denied in part. Then, on Dec. 18, 2020, the
Plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Amended Complaint ("CAC"). Ford
now moves to dismiss the CAC.
Of the previous set of plaintiffs in the FAC, only one former
plaintiff (Lessin) survives. He is now joined by 13 new plaintiffs
from 10 different states, asserting 36 claims for breach of
warranty (express and implied), fraudulent concealment, and
violation of various state consumer fraud statutes related to a
purported suspension defect in new and used F-250 and F-350 trucks.
They allege that each Plaintiff spoke with "one or more Ford
dealership sales representatives regarding the various features,
benefits, and attributes" of their vehicles, and relied on those
conversations when making their purchase. Most of these Plaintiffs
also allege they relied on the window sticker when making the
determination to purchase the Vehicles.
Discussion
Ford seeks dismissal of the Plaintiffs' (1) express warranty
claims, (2) implied warranty claims, and (3) fraud-based claims.
A. Plaintiffs' Express Warranty Claims
Judge Battaglia starts with the Plaintiffs' express warranty
claims. The Plaintiffs bring express warranty claims under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), and the laws of Arizona,
California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, New Mexico, Ohio, South
Carolina, and Texas. Ford's theory supporting dismissal of all
these claims is based on what it believes to be insufficient
facts.
The Plaintiffs challenge two of Ford's express warranties offered
to purchasers of its vehicles: (1) Ford's New Vehicle
Bumper-to-Bumper Limited Warranty ("Limited Warranty"), and (2)
Ford's Certified Pre-Owned Comprehensive Limited Warranty ("CPO
Warranty"). Ford's Limited Warranty provides "bumper-to-bumper"
coverage for new vehicles sold at retail for 3 years or 36,000
miles, whichever occurs first. It promises to repair, replace, or
adjust a covered part only if a vehicle that malfunctions "during
normal use during the applicable coverage period" is "taken to a
Ford dealership for a warranted repair during the warranty period."
(Id. at 9.) Ford's CPO Warranty operates as separate
manufacturer-backed limited warranty protection for pre-owned or
used vehicles that Ford has "certified" for resale by authorized
Ford dealers. The CPO Warranty provides "repair or replace"
coverage for listed vehicle components for 12 months or 12,000
miles, whichever comes first from the expiration of the Limited
Warranty or the date of purchase of the CPO vehicle, whichever
comes later.
Under Ninth Circuit authority, "a repair or replace remedy fails of
its essential purpose only if repeated repair attempts are
unsuccessful within a reasonable time." Ford argues no breach of
these warranties occurred because no plaintiff alleges that they
were refused a free repair by a Ford dealer, or experienced
multiple unsuccessful repair attempts, at any point during which
the two warranties applied.
Ford's arguments can be divided into three challenges: (1) repair
attempts outside the warranty period, (2) successful in-warranty
repairs, and (3) insufficient allegations of breach.
1. Repair Attempts Outside the Warranty Period
Ford argues that Plaintiff Smalley (California), Plaintiff Hamilton
(Maine), and Plaintiff Hahn (Ohio) all do not have express warranty
claims because the repair attempts fell outside the applicable
express warranty periods.
Judge Battaglia finds that Plaintiff Smalley's allegations are not
sufficient to state an express warranty claim because her express
warranty fails for falling out of the scope of coverage. Her claim
is dismissed without leave to amend.
The Judge also finds that the facts are sufficient to state
Plaintiff Hamilton's express warranty claim. The CAC provides that
while the Vehicle was covered by the Limited Warranty, Ford
technicians could not provide a solution for the defect. Construing
these facts in a light most favorable to Ms. Hamilton, this is
sufficient, at the motion to dismiss stage, to allege a breach of
express warranty claim. The motion to dismiss this claim is
therefore denied.
Lastly, the Judge finds that Mr. Hahn's express warranty claim
fails. He finds that by the time Mr. Hahn brought his Vehicle in to
Ford for repair of the alleged defect, the Limited Warranty was no
longer in effect. Coverage only existed for the earlier of three
years or 36,000 miles. At 41,006 miles, Mr. Hahn's Vehicle no
longer qualified for coverage under the Limited Warranty. The
claims are dismissed without leave to amend.
2. "Successful" In-Warranty Repairs
Second, Ford argues that Plaintiff Powers (California) and
Plaintiff Appel (Illinois) both do not have an express warranty
claim because the repairs they sought from Ford proved to be
successful.
a) Plaintiff Powers (California)
Judge Battaglia holds that Mr. and Mrs. Powers have not
sufficiently alleged an express warranty claim. The Powers only
presented their Vehicle once for repair, but as their allegations
show, they have not experienced symptoms of the alleged defect
since this repair. Furthermore, there are no allegations by the
Powers specifically that the defect is substantially certain to
occur again. Hence, their claims are dismissed with leave to
amend.
b) Plaintiff Appel (Illinois)
The Judge finds that although Mr. Appel comes closer than the
Powers in alleging an express warranty claim, his claim fails for
the same reasons the Powers' claim does. Mr. Appel only presented
his Vehicle for repair twice, but as the claims allege, he has not
experienced symptoms of the alleged defect since this repair.
Furthermore, there are no allegations by Mr. Appel specifically
that the defect is substantially certain to occur again. For these
reasons, Mr. Appel's claim is dismissed with leave to amend.
3. Insufficient Allegations of Breach
Next, Judge Battaglia analyzes Ford's arguments relating to what it
believes to be insufficient facts supporting a breach of warranty.
In particular, Ford argues Plaintiff Nielsen (Colorado) and
Plaintiff Saddler (Ohio) allege insufficient facts to state an
express warranty claim.
a) Plaintiff Nielsen (Colorado)
The Judge agrees that Mr. Nielsen's claim should be dismissed. Ford
argues that Mr. Nielsen does not allege that he brought the Vehicle
in for further repairs during the warranty period, much less that
Ford refused any covered in-warranty repairs. To state a claim for
breach of express warranty, the plaintiff must prove (1) the
existence of a warranty, (2) breach of the warranty, (3) the breach
proximately caused the losses claims as damages, and (4) defendant
received timely notice of the breach. Mr. Nielson only points to a
single instance in which he sought repair. Without more, these
allegations are insufficient to establish failed "repeated repair
attempts" at remedying the alleged defect. This claim is therefore
dismissed with leave to amend.
b) Plaintiff Saddler (Ohio)
With regard to the F-250, Mr. Saddler alleges that he brought his
F-250 in for service of the defect twice within the CPO warranty
period. He also alleged that his problems with his Vehicle
persisted. At this stage of the matter, these facts are sufficient
to state a claim for breach of express warranty, the Judge holds.
He denied the motion is as to the F-250. As for Mr. Saddler's
F-350, Mr. Saddler does not specify whether his Vehicle was new or
pre-owned, and so, the Court is unable to adequately assess whether
his Vehicle was covered by which warranty. This claim is dismissed
with leave to amend to provide additional clarification for this
claim.
4. Pre-Suit Notice for Breach of Warranty Claims
Ford next argues the claims of Plaintiffs Nielsen (Colorado), Appel
(Illinois), Hamilton (Maine), Selgado (New Mexico), Hahn (Ohio),
Saddler (Ohio), Huffstetler (South Carolina), and McGee (Texas) all
fail for the additional, independent reason that there was
insufficient pre-suit notice of the breach of express warranty.
Judge Battaglia analyzes whether there is adequate notice provided
by each plaintiff. He holds that to the extent Ford seeks to
dismissal of certain claims for lack of pre-suit notice, that
motion is denied. The Judge finds that (i) Mr. Appel's allegations
are sufficient to allege pre-suit notice because there is certainly
enough to allege that Ford was apprised of the alleged defect with
the Vehicle; (ii) Ms. Hamilton's allegations do sufficiently
provide enough to show pre-suit notice; (iii) Mr. Huffstetler's
notice is enough to proceed with the breach of express warranty
claim; (iv) Mr. Selgado presented the Vehicle for warranty service
after experiencing the shaking issues, which was confirmed by
technicians; (v) Mr. Hahn and Mr. Saddler's claims under Ohio law
are not subject to dismissal for lack of notice because not only
did they both file a complaint, they allege in the CAC that they
provided notice to Ford by requesting that Ford remediate the
"Death Wobble" specifically; (vi) the service technician assigned
to work on Mr. Nielsen's vehicle test drove it and verified the
violent and abnormal shaking; and (vii) because of the recurring
problem, Ford was put on notice of Ms. McGee's issues with the
alleged defect.
B. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA")
Ford then argues that the Plaintiffs' MMWA claims fail because they
are derivative of the state law warranty claims. The MMWA "allows a
consumer to bring a suit where they claim to be damaged by the
failure of a supplier, warrantor, or service contractor to comply
with any obligation under the MMWA or under a written warranty,
implied warranty, or service contract." There are two types of
written warranties under the MMWA: full warranties and limited
warranties. The MMWA does not provide remedies for breach of
"limited" warranties. Instead, the MMWA allows consumers to
"enforce written and implied warranties in federal court" by
"borrowing state law causes of action." Thus, a court's
"disposition of the state law warranty claims determines its
disposition of the MMWA claims."
Accordingly, Judge Battaglia holds that the determination of the
state law warranty claims will inform the MMWA claim. Therefore,
the conclusions applicable to the state law warranty claims
discussed apply with equal force to the MMWA claim. There is no
need to dismiss this claim at this time.
C. Plaintiff's Implied Warranty Claims
Now turning to the implied warranty claims, Ford argues that the
Plaintiffs' implied warranty of merchantability claims under the
California Song-Beverly Act and under Colorado, Maine, New Mexico,
Ohio, South Carolina, and Texas common law fail for a multitude of
reasons.
1. Lack of Privity Regarding Ohio Claims
First, Ford attacks the viability of the Ohio implied breach of
warranty claim brought by Plaintiffs Hahn and Saddler. Because
Plaintiffs Hahn and Saddler have not specifically alleged any
exception to privity, the Judge finds that Ohio law requires the
dismissal of this claim. Second, Plaintiffs Hahn and Saddler also
attempt to save their claim by arguing that they also plead a
tortious breach of implied warranty claim, which does not require
privity. The Judge holds that nowhere in the CAC can the Court even
construe a tortious implied warranty claim. Thus, the argument
falls short. Accordingly, the Judge must grant Ford's motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs Hahn and Saddler's breach of implied warranty
claim. This claim is dismissed with leave to amend.
2. Pre-Suit Notice for Breach of Implied Warranty Claims
Next, Ford makes the argument that the implied warranty claims of
Plaintiffs Nielsen (Colorado), Hamilton (Maine), Selgado (New
Mexico), Hahn (Ohio), Saddler (Ohio), Huffstetler (South Carolina),
and McGee (Texas) fail for the lack of pre-suit notice.
Judge Battaglia's prior analysis of pre-suit notice for the
Plaintiffs' express warranty claims apply with equal force to the
implied warranty claims, and he need not revisit the issue. At the
minimum, whether sufficient notice was given is a question of fact,
but the Jdge holds that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that
they put Ford on notice as to the claimed wobbling defects.
3. Plaintiffs Smalley (California) and Hahn (Ohio)
The next argument Ford makes is that the Plaintiffs Smalley
(California) and Hahn's (Ohio) implied warranty claims fail because
they did not experience an issue with their vehicles within the
durational limits of the Limited Warranty. Ford's Limited Warranty
provides that implied warranty claims are limited to the "time
period covered by the written warranties." Neither Plaintiff
Smalley nor Plaintiff Hahn endured problems within this durational
limit, Ford avers. The Plaintiffs respond by invoking the latent
defect exception, arguing that the durational limit defined by the
warranty does not apply when there is a latent defect that
manifests outside the applicable warranty period.
Judge Battaglia finds that the Ohio Plaintiffs do not plead
tortious implied warranty claims. They do not cite other authority
supporting their claim that they may bring implied warranty claims,
based on contract, outside the warranty period. As such, Plaintiff
Hahn's implied warranty claim is dismissed with leave to amend for
this additional reason.
The Judge also declines to dismiss the implied warranty claim for
occurring outside of the scope of the warranty since the Plaintiffs
have pled that the defect was latent and existed within the time
period of the warranty. Plaintiff Smalley has pled that the alleged
defect was latent.
4. Plaintiff Smalley (California)
Ford mounts additional attacks on Plaintiff Smalley's implied
warranty claim. Ford argues the Song-Beverly Act does not apply to
her purchase because the Act only applies to purchasers of new
consumer goods.
Judge Battaglia holds is is correct. The California Court of Appeal
has looked to the Song-Beverly Act, and recently held that under
the lemon law, only distributors and retail sellers, not
manufacturers, are liable for breach of implied warranties in the
sale of a used car where, as here, the manufacturer did not offer
the used car for sale to the public. Ford was the manufacturer of
the car, not a distributor or dealer who sold the used car to
Plaintiff Smalley. Therefore, Plaintiff Smalley's implied warranty
claim against Ford necessarily fails. The claim will be dismissed
without leave to amend.
D. Fraud-Based Claims
Ford moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' fraud-based claims (for
violation of various state consumer protection statutes and for
fraudulent concealment). Ford makes two primary arguments based on:
(1) failure to plead with particularity under Rule 9(b), and (2)
because Plaintiffs' assertion of "knowledge" of the "defect" are
undermined by the facts they have pled.
1. Fraud-Based Claims Based on Affirmative Misrepresentations
Judge Battaglia finds that nowhere in the CAC do the Plaintiffs
plead with specificity any affirmative statement concerning the
suspension system at issue. These generalized and vague assertions
do not rise to the level of any specific affirmative statement
concerning the relevant aspects of the Vehicles. Accordingly, to
the extent the Plaintiffs bring affirmative fraud-based claims,
these threadbare claims are dismissed without leave to amend.
2. Fraud-Based Claims Based on Omission
Ford argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to specifically plead
"pre-purchase knowledge" of the alleged defect. The basis of this
contention is that the CAC contains allegations of issues with
Ford's F-series spanning the period of 15 years.
Judge Battaglia holds that the Court has already addressed these
similar arguments in its previous dismissal order, and need not
repeat itself in detail once again. As the Court has already
decided in its prior order, "it would strain credulity to say that
Plaintiffs have not pled knowledge on the part of Ford when from
March 10, 2005 to Feb. 6, 2019, a staggering 1,265 consumer
complaints were submitted to the NHTSA with consumers experiencing
the alleged violent shaking defect of their Vehicles." These
allegations are still present in the CAC, and there is nothing new
to suggest that the Court should disturb that prior ruling.
And, as the Court has previously stated, the Plaintiffs do not rest
their theory of knowledge on just the NHTSA complaints alone. In
addition to the NHTSA complaints, the Plaintiffs point to (1)
Ford's own records of customers' complaints, (2) dealership repair
records, (3) warranty and post-warranty claims, and (4) pre-sale
durability testing and part sales as grounds to infer knowledge.
There is no reason to deviate from this prior ruling as these
allegations have not changed, even if some plaintiffs have.
With these specific facts in the CAC, the motion to dismiss the
fraud-based omission claims is denied.
3. Duty to Disclose - Fraudulent Concealment Claims
Next, Ford argues that under the laws of Illinois, Maine, Ohio,
South Carolina, and Texas, it had no duty to disclose the alleged
defect.
(1) Illinois
In the CAC, Plaintiffs adequately plead under Illinois law that,
"Ford had a duty to disclose these omitted material facts because
they were known and/or accessible only to Ford who had superior
knowledge and access to the facts, and Ford knew they were not
known to or reasonably discoverable by Plaintiff and the Illinois
Class members." These allegations that Ford was in a superior
position, with superior knowledge is enough, at the motion to
dismiss stage. The motion is denied on this ground.
(2) Ohio
Ford also argues that under Ohio law, there is no duty by a
manufacturer to disclose safety defects. But as aptly stated by
another district court analyzing Ohio law, the Plaintiffs do not
cite any authority indicating that Ohio recognizes a safety defect
duty to disclose, citing Chapman v. Gen. Motors LLC, No.
219CV12333TGBDRG, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2021 WL 1286612, at *17
(E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2021). Accordingly, this claim is dismissed
without leave to amend.
(3) Texas
Ford next argues there is no duty to disclose under Texas law. This
is correct, the Judge finds. He says, numerous cases have discussed
the duty element in the context of fraudulent concealment at both
the motion to dismiss and summary judgment stages, and found a
manufacturer has no duty of disclosure to a consumer. Accordingly,
Plaintiff McGee may not maintain a fraudulent concealment claim
under Texas law.
(4) Maine
Ford argues that there is no duty to disclose, under Maine law
without "fiduciary or confidential relationship." But under Maine
law, "fraud based on a party's silence may still be actionable
depending on the facts of the case." Dismissal is inappropriate at
this stage given that the Plaintiffs have successfully alleged
fraud by omission, the Judge hods. The motion is denied for this
claim.
(5) South Carolina
Ford also argues no duty to disclose under South Carolina law,
citing Jimenez v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 269 F.3d 439, 447 (4th
Cir. 2001) (South Carolina only recognizes duty to disclose in
limited circumstances). South Carolina courts have made clear that
a duty to disclose arises in only three circumstances: (1) where
there exists a preexisting definite fiduciary relation between the
parties; (2) where one party expressly reposes a trust and
confidence in the other with reference to the particular
transaction in question, or else from the circumstances of the
case, the nature of their dealings, or their position towards each
other, such a trust and confidence in the particular case is
necessarily implied; or (3) where the very contract or transaction
itself, in its essential nature, is intrinsically fiduciary and
necessarily calls for perfect good faith and full disclosure
without regard to any particular intention of the parties.
Under these limited circumstances, the Judge holds that the
Plaintiffs cannot allege a fiduciary relationship, an affirmative
misrepresentation, or any other facts recognized as creating a duty
to disclose in South Carolina. Thus, this claim is dismissed with
leave to amend.
4. Various Other Grounds for Dismissal
Ford also seeks dismissal of various state law claims for various
different reasons.
a) Colorado Consumer Protection Act
Ford seeks dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Colorado Consumer Protect
Act ("CCPA") claim because the CCPA bars class action claims for
monetary relief.
Judge Battaglia agrees that state law class action bars are
procedural rules because "a rule barring class actions does not
prevent individuals who would otherwise be members of the class
from bringing their own separate suits or joining in a preexisting
lawsuit." The substantive rights of these individuals are not
affected whether they choose to pursue their claims individually,
or as a collective group. The prohibitions against class actions
only affect "how the claims are processed," and does not preclude
individuals from obtaining their day in court. The class action
device, "leaves the parties' legal rights and duties intact and the
rules of decision unchanged." The only difference is that in
federal court, the putative class members may pursue a different
method of obtaining the same relief. Because he finds that state
law class action bars are procedural, federal procedural law (Rule
23) trumps these state law procedural prohibitions. Accordingly,
the Judge disagrees with Ford, and so, he denies its motion to
dismiss on this ground.
b) Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act ("OCSPA")
Ford moves to dismiss the OCSPA claim due to the Plaintiffs'
failure to adequately allege notice. To pursue a class action claim
under the OCSPA, the Plaintiffs must allege that Ford had prior
notice that its conduct was "deceptive or unconscionable."
The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs do not adequately allege that
Ford was put on notice by an Ohio court decision or a specific rule
or regulation which has been promulgated by the Ohio Attorney
General. Finding that there are no facts supporting notice, the
claim is dismissed with leave to amend.
c) Arizona Consumer Fraud Act
Ford also argues that the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act is barred by
the relevant one-year statute of limitations.
In the case, Judge Battaglia holds that the claim is time-barred.
According to the factual allegations in the CAC, Mr. Atterson
should have "discovered or with reasonable diligence could have
discovered the fraud" between April and July 2018. However, Mr.
Atterson did not file his claim until October 2019. Therefore, his
claim is precluded by the one-year statute of limitations. This
claim is thus dismissed without leave to amend.
d) Fraudulent Concealment Claim Under Indiana Law
Ford also seeks dismissal of Plaintiff Kigin's (Indiana) fraudulent
concealment claim under Indiana law because the economic loss
doctrine bars such a claim. The Judge says, Indiana courts apply
the economic loss rule to preclude recovery in tort for purely
economic loss—pecuniary loss unaccompanied by any property damage
or personal injury (other than damage to the product or service
provided by the defendant)." In the case, the Plaintiffs only
allege purely economic loss related to the Vehicles they purchased.
The Plaintiffs do not provide an opposition to this claim, and so,
the Judge dismisses the claim without leave to amend.
E. Nationwide MMWA Class Claim
Lastly, Ford asks that the Court dismissal or strike the
Plaintiffs' MMWA nationwide class claim. The CAC provides that the
MMWA claim is based upon "Michigan Breach of Warranty Law or,
alternatively, the Breach of Warranty Laws of the 50 States." Ford
argues that Michigan law cannot apply to the claims of all class
members, and no single state's law could apply nationwide to the
Plaintiffs' warranty claims. Furthermore, Ford also argues that the
Court would potentially have to apply different state laws to each
respective Plaintiff's claim. Differences in state laws governing
each claim would create manageability concerns prohibiting class
certification, Ford contends.
The Plaintiffs offer that they will seek to certify their claims on
a nationwide basis by grouping together those arising under
materially similar states' laws, or under Michigan law, which is
Ford's home state.
Judge Battaglia holds that Whether Michigan law differs from the
laws of other states in a way that is material to the litigation is
not a proper inquiry at the pleading stage. Ultimately, he says the
Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the differences in state laws
implicated by the putative class action are nonmaterial. Such a
factual inquiry is more appropriately suited at the class
certification stage. At this time, the Judge concludes that it is
unable to determine whether a nationwide class can be sustained in
the case. Accordingly, Ford's motion to dismiss on these grounds is
denied without prejudice and may be renewed at a later time.
Conclusion
For the reasons he set forth, Judge Battaglia grants in part and
denies in part Ford's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' CAC. Should
the Plaintiffs choose to do so, where leave is granted, they must
file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies noted by Sept.
13, 2021.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y9u5mxjk from Leagle.com.
FORTUNA REALTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kisin Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANA KISIN and JULIANA PREKA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FORTUNA REALTY HOTEL SOHO
LLC d/b/a HOTEL HUGO; 523 GREENWICH RESTAURANT LLC; MORRIS MOINIAN;
MATTHEW MOINIAN; NICHOLAS MOINIAN; and JONATHAN MOINIAN,
Defendants, Case No. 521733/2021 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Aug. 24,
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.
Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as hotel staffs.
FORTUNA REALTY HOTEL SOHO LLC d/b/a HOTEL HUGO is engaged in the
hospitality industry. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of October 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds Generac
Holdings Inc. (NYSE: GNRC) ("Generac") investors that a securities
fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California against
Generac on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Generac
securities betweeen February 23, 2021 and July 29, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2021
Website:
https://www.ktmc.com/generac-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=generac
Contact: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453
Toll free (844) 887-9500
Generac describes itself as a leading global designer and
manufacturer of a wide range of energy technology solutions, which
provides power generation equipment and other power products
serving the residential, light commercial and industrial markets.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Generac's portable generators posed an
unreasonable risk of injury to users and the public; (2) as a
result, at least seven finger amputations and one crushed finger
had been reported to the company; (3) as a result, Generac would
face increased regulatory scrutiny; (4) Generac would end sales in
its Generac® and DR® 6500 Watt and 8000 Watt portable generators
in the United States and Canada in June 2021; (5) Generac would
recall its Generac® and DR® 6500 Watt and 8000 Watt portable
generators in the United States and Canada; (6) the end of sales
and the recall would occur before Generac's noted hurricane and
wildfire seasons and following the Texas outage—periods the
company has touted for sales; and (7) as a result, defendants'
public statements and statements to journalists were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
Generac investors may, no later than October 19, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com. [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: Court OKs Stipulation for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIM NAUMAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
3:21-cv-05150-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Benjamin H. Settle
entered an order granting the Parties' stipulated motion as
follows:
-- Plaintiff will file a motion for class certification, if
any, within 120 days after the Court's order on GM's
Motion to Dismiss.
-- GM's response shall be filed no later than 60 days 5 after
Plaintiff files a motion for class certification, and
Plaintiff's reply shall be filed 30 days 6 after GM's
response.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 31, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3n7Z3bg at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Kaleigh Powell, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, Washington 98101
Telephone: 206-682-5600
E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
kpowell@tousley.com
- and -
W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN
PORTIS & MILES, P.C
272 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: 334-269-2343
E-mail: Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com
Mitch.Williams@BeasleyAllen.com
- and -
Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
John E. Tangren, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, 11th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
dferri@dicellolevitt.com
The Defendant is represented by:
April N. Ross, Esq.
Kathleen Taylor Sooy, Esq.
CROWELL & MORING LLP
E-mail: ksooy@crowell.com
aross@crowell.com
rrpphael@crowell.com
- and -
Rachel P. Raphael, Esq.
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT,
P.C.Jennifer L. Campbell, WSBA No. 31703
1420 5th Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101-4010
Telephone: 206-689-3052
E-mail: jcampbell@schwabe.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Deadline Extension for Class Cert. Filing Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIM NAUMAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
3:21-cv-05150-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order extending the deadline for Plaintiff to file his motion
for class certification and setting the related briefing deadlines
for that motion.
On March 1, 2021, the Plaintiff filed this action for damages,
individually and on behalf of nationwide and Washington classes of
purchasers and lessees of certain model year GM vehicles with
Generation IV 5.3 Liter V8 Vortec 5300 LC9 engines.
On May 17, 2021, GM filed a Motion to Dismiss Class Action
Complaint. The Plaintiff filed his Opposition on June 14, and GM
filed its Reply on July. The Motion is now fully briefed.
Under Western District of Washington Local Rule 23(i)(3), the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification would be due on August
30, 2021.
A copy of the Parties motion dated Aug. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38J4c0Z at no extra charge.[CC]
Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are:
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Kaleigh Powell, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
kpowell@tousley.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
John E. Tangren, Esq.
Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, 11th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: 312-214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
dferri@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
W. Daniel “Dee” Miles, III, Esq.
J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
272 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com
Mitch.Williams@BeasleyAllen.com
Counsel for Defendant General Motors LLC
Jennifer L. Campbell, Esq.
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
1420 5th Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101-4010
Telephone: 206-689-3052
E-mail: jcampbell@schwabe.com
- and -
April N. Ross, Esq.
Kathleen Taylor Sooy, Esq.
Rachel P. Raphael, Esq.
CROWELL & MORING LLP
E-mail: ksooy@crowell.com
aross@crowell.com
rrpphael@crowell.com
GOLDMAN SACHS: Investor Files Suit Over Proposed Mirion Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Jackson at Reuters reports that a GS Acquisition Holdings
Corp II investor has sued the Goldman Sachs-backed special purpose
acquisition company to block a vote required to close its $2.6
billion merger with radiation detector maker Mirion Technologies
Inc.
In a proposed class action filed in Wilmington, Delaware, on
Friday, SPAC investor Joel Newman accused the SPAC of violating
Delaware law by calling for different shareholder classes to vote
together on a share increase.
The lawsuit was filed as other blank-check firms have faced similar
bids to block share increase votes.
Newman's attorneys, Donald Enright and Jordan Cafritz of Levi &
Korsinsky, did not immediately respond to requests for comment on
Friday. Neither did representatives for the Goldman SPAC or
Mirion.
The SPAC, formed by Goldman Sachs Asset Management, announced in
June that it had agreed to combine with Mirion.
As part of the deal, the blank check company is seeking shareholder
approval to increase its Class A shares from 500 million to 2
billion, according to the complaint.
Blank check company Khosla Ventures Acquisition Co. II was also hit
with a suit on Friday over a share issuance vote needed to complete
its $4.3 billion union with social media app Nextdoor Inc.
Attorneys from Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz are leading the investor
in that case, according to the complaint. The Purcell Julie &
Lefkowitz attorneys did not immediately respond to requests for
comment. Neither did representatives for the Khosla SPAC and
Nextdoor.
The case is Joel Newman v. GS Acquisition Holdings Corp II,
Delaware Court of Chancery, No. 2021-0760.
For Newman: Donald Enright and Jordan Cafritz of Levi & Korsinsky.
Counsel information for GS Acquisition Holdings was not immediately
known. [GN]
GREIF PACKAGING: Class Cert Filing Deadline Continued to Nov. 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANUEL GOMEZ, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. GREIF PACKAGING LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND
DOES 1 THROUGH 50 INCLUSIVE, Case No. 2:21-cv-02431-DSF-JEM (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer entered an order continuing
class ertification motion filing deadline from August 31, 2021 to
November 29, 2021.
Greif Packaging provides industrial packaging products and
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3By7noC at no extra charge.[CC]
HF FOODS: Mendoza Securities Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESUS MENDOZA, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HF FOODS GROUP INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-CV-02929-ODW (JPRx) (C.D. Cal.),
Judge Otis D. Wright, II, of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California grants the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint, with leave to amend.
Background
The case is a putative class action for securities fraud under
sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. On March 29, 2020, Plaintiff Mendoza filed his Complaint
against Defendant HF Foods along with Defendants Zhou Min Ni, Xiao
Mou Zhang, Jian Ming Ni, and Caixuan Xu. Thereafter, the case was
consolidated with Walter Ponce Sanchez v. HF Foods Group Inc., et
al., No. 2:20-cv-03967-ODW (JPRx). Mendoza's case was designated as
the lead case, and thereafter, Plaintiff Yun F. Yee was designated
as the Lead Plaintiff.
The Plaintiffs filed their consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint on Dec. 4, 2020, and their Corrected Amended Class Action
Complaint ("AC") on Dec. 11, 2020. The Amended Complaint added Chan
Sin Wong as a Defendant.
In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs set forth claims against
the Defendants for 1) violations of section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule ("Rule")
10b-5; 2) violations of section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act and Rule 14a-9; and 3) violations of section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act. They assert their first two claims against
all Defendants and their third claim against the Individual
Defendants.
HF Foods distributes food products to Asian restaurants located
primarily in the Southeastern, Pacific, and Mountain West regions
of the United States. Xiao Mou Zhang serves as the Company's
Chairman, and since November 2019 he and Zhou Min Ni have served as
the co-Chief Executive Officers of the Company. Chan Sin Wong, the
other co-founder, served as President, CEO, and Director of the
Company until November 2019, and she served as an executive of many
of the Company's key operating subsidiaries throughout the Class
Period. Caixuan Xu currently serves as the Company's Chief Internal
Control Officer; he was previously its CFO and Principal Accounting
Officer. Jian Ming Ni served as the Company's CFO until April
2019.
First, the Defendants allegedly facilitated and concealed various
related party transactions between the Company and other entities,
to the Plaintiffs' detriment. The second group of fraud allegations
concerns the Company's ownership throughout the class period of a
fleet of vehicles worth nearly $1.6 million, including four
Ferraris, a Bentley, and a collectible 2005 Ford GT. As alleged,
Zhou Min Ni, Chan Sin Wong, and their son Raymond used these cars
for personal, non-business purposes. The Plaintiffs allege the
Defendants concealed or failed to disclose the Company's ownership
of these cars in various public filings and statements. Finally,
the Plaintiffs allege that the Company was erroneously included on
the FTSE/Russell Index, which may have been due to the Defendants'
improper manipulations of the number of free-floating shares.
On Jan. 19, 2021, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs opposed, and
the Defendants responded.
Discussion
A. Request for Judicial Notice
The Defendants request that the Court takes judicial notice of two
exhibits. Exhibit A is a 2019 Form 10-K HF Foods filed with the
Securities Exchange Commission ("SEC") on March 16, 2020. Exhibit B
is a Hindenburg Research internet report entitled "HF Foods: 90%+
Downside on Massive Undisclosed Related-Party Transactions,
Shareholder Cash Spent on Exotic Supercars & Outrageous Fundamental
Valuation," dated March 23, 2020.
Exhibit A is a SEC filing that was available during some of the
relevant timeframe. Moreover, the Plaintiffs expressly refer to,
and rely on, this document in the Amended Complaint. Therefore,
Judge Wright judicially notices the fact and existence of Exhibit
A, and its contents are deemed incorporated into the Amended
Complaint by reference.
Exhibit B, the Hindenburg Report, is incorporated by reference into
the AC because the Plaintiffs quote the Hindenburg Report
extensively and repeatedly throughout the AC. The Report also forms
the basis of Plaintiffs' claims, in that the Plaintiffs allege the
report revealed the truth about HF Foods and caused its stock price
to drop. Hence, Exhibit B is deemed incorporated into the AC by
reference, and the Court may refer to it in determining if the
Plaintiffs have stated a claim.
B. Motion to Dismiss
The Plaintiffs assert three claims for federal securities
violations: Claim One against all the Defendants, for
misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the purchase of
HF Foods' stock, in violation of section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5;
Claim Two against all Defendants, for misrepresentations and
omissions in connection with HF Foods' proxy statements under
section 14(a) and Rule 14a-9; and Claim Three against the
Individual Defendants for control person liability under section
20(a) stemming from the first two claims. The Defendants argue that
all three claims should be dismissed.
I. Claim One under Section 10(b)
The Plaintiffs' Claim One is for violations of section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5. The Defendants move to dismiss Claim One on the grounds
that the Amended Complaint fails to sufficiently allege falsity,
scienter, and loss causation.
Judge Wright holds that Claim One claim fails in its entirety due
to a lack of clear allegations of falsity that meet the
requirements of FRCP 9(b) and the PSLRA. Moreover, parts of the
claim fail against at least some of the Individual Defendants due
to group pleading problems.
The most orderly way to conduct an analysis of this cause of action
and the 132-page, 251-paragraph pleading supporting it is according
to the categories of adverse information Defendants are alleged to
have concealed. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants concealed
(1) information about the fleet of luxury cars, and (2) information
about the related party transactions, including (3) the merger with
B&R.
1. Luxury Cars
Upon careful evaluation, Judge Wright holds that the Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint does not present sufficient reasons why the
delivery fleet disclosures or executive compensation disclosures
were misleading. Thus, any Rule 10b-5 fraud based on omission or
concealment of the luxury cars fails in the case due to lack of
adequately alleged falsity. The Judge need not and presently does
not make any determination regarding scienter or loss causation
from concealment of the luxury cars.
2. Related Party Transactions Other Than the B&R Merger
The Plaintiffs also allege Rule 10b-5 securities fraud arising from
the various related party transactions that the Defendants failed
to disclose during the relevant period. For the moment, Judge
Wright sets aside the merger with B&R and first considers all the
other related party transactions alleged in the Amended Complaint.
These transactions appear to be primarily sales transactions and
include those with Revolution Industry, LLC and Revolution
Automotive, LLC; with NC Noodle; with UGO USA (NC) Inc., Eastern
Fresh NJ LLC, and Fortune One Foods Inc.; and all the other
transactions evidenced by the data in the SEC filings, which the
Plaintiffs have alleged with excruciating detail.
First, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs' allegations of the
filings' falsity are neither cogent nor compelling and fail to set
forth any substantial basis for the proposition that the
Defendants, through the filings, lied to or misled investors. Thus,
the Defendants' alleged concealment or omission of these related
party sales transactions does not support a Rule 10b-5 fraud
claim.
Second, when the conclusory allegations in the Amended Complaint
are disregarded, the Plaintiffs have alleged little more than the
executive position of each of the Individual Defendants. There are
no allegations of case-specific facts suggesting that any of the
Individual Defendants knew the transactions were harming the
Company or working a fraud on investors. Accordingly, any fraud
claim arising from the related party sales transactions fails for
lack of scienter.
Third, all the alleged bases for Rule 10b-5 fraud -- the luxury
cars, the related party sales transactions, and the B&R merger --
fail on the falsity requirement. For completeness, the Judge notes
that the Plaintiffs' ancillary allegations about the "gaming" of
the Russell Index, fail for the same essential reason: The
Plaintiffs point to public filings and conclusorily allege that the
filings did not disclose certain facts about the number of
free-floating shares, without alleging why investors would have
expected to see this information on the filings.
For these reasons, Judge Wright grants the Motion as to Claim One.
II. Claim Two under Section 14(a)
By way of Claim Two, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
prepared, reviewed, or disseminated false and misleading proxy
statements in violation of Section 14(a) and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder. Claim Two fails because the Amended Complaint's
allegations of both falsehood and the requisite level of
culpability are inadequate.
First, as discussed in the context of falsity in Claim One, Judge
Wright holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege that any of
the proxy statements contained a material misrepresentation or
omission. He says, the Plaintiffs set forth the proxy statements in
the Amended Complaint and alleged in a conclusory way that those
statements concealed information about the luxury cars, the related
party sales transactions, and the B&R merger. But the Plaintiffs do
not allege the "reason or reasons" why the assertions in the proxy
statements were false or misleading.
Second, the Plaintiffs allege as part of Claim Two that te
"Defendants were at least negligent in filing" the three proxies at
issue. The Plaintiffs do not plead the Defendants' negligence to
the PSLRA's heightened standard. As with their Rule 10b-5 fraud
claim, Plaintiffs cannot rely on group pleading. Nor can the
Plaintiffs rely on conclusory labels or boilerplate references to
corporate executive duties. The Judge finds that much of the
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint relies on these devices, and this
claim also fails for that reason. The PSLRA's "exacting pleading
obligation . . . presents no small hurdle for the securities fraud
plaintiff," and in the case.
For these reasons, Judge Wright grants the motion as to Claim Two.
III. Claim Three Against Individual Defendants under Section 20(a)
The Plaintiffs' Claim Three is for control person liability under
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A claim under
Section 20(a) is dependent on a primary violation of either Section
10(b) or Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act or Rule 10b-5 or Rule
14a-9. As he finds that the Plaintiffs fail to plead a violation of
either Section 10(b) or Section 14(a), Judge Wright grants the
Motion as to Claim Three.
IV. Leave to Amend
Generally, a court should freely give leave to amend a dismissed
complaint. Judge Wright grants the Plaintiffs leave to amend with
respect to the claims and issues addressed.
V. Form of Pleading
The disorganized, prolix nature of the Amended Complaint is an
additional basis for granting the Defendants' Motion. Neither
courts nor defendants should have to wade through the morass of
'puzzle pleadings' as this wastes judicial resources and undermines
the requisite notice for a defendant to respond." Dismissal is
appropriate when, as in the case, "the inconsistent use of
emphasis, use of cross-references, and failure to delineate the
reasons why statements were false and misleading presented in the
complaint require the court to parse through statements to discover
which are false and misleading.
As the Court has observed, there are vast swaths of the Plaintiffs'
132-page pleading that do little to advance or support their
claims. There are also aspects of the pleading that are repetitive,
often in a way that contributes ambiguity and uncertainty to the
pleading. It is the plaintiff" who "has the responsibility to craft
a clear and concise complaint." The problem with the Plaintiffs'
pleading, the Judge finds, is not that it is too short, and merely
adding allegations to this already byzantine pleading is unlikely
to convince the Court that a claim has been stated. Accordingly,
the Judge takes a jaundiced view of any amended pleading that is
longer than the current one and may strike an amended pleading in
the matter if it perpetuates the prolixity that prevents meaningful
analysis of the claims.
Conclusion
For the reasons he discussed, Judge Wright grants the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint, with leave to
amend. If the Plaintiffs elect to file a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint ("SAC"), they will do so within 21 days of the
date of the Order. If the Plaintiffs file a SAC, the Defendants
will file a response no later than 14 days from the date the
Plaintiffs file the SAC. If the Plaintiffs do not timely file a
SAC, then as of their deadline and without further notice the
dismissal will be with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/pvcw598r from Leagle.com.
HYRECAR INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 26 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of HyreCar Inc. ("HyreCar") (NASDAQ: HYRE) between May
14, 2021 and August 10, 2021. You are hereby notified that a
securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. To
get more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hyrecar-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19274&wire=5
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
HyreCar Inc. NEWS - HYRE NEWS
CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (a) HyreCar had
materially understated its insurance reserves; (b) HyreCar had
systematically failed to pay valid insurance claims incurred prior
to the Class Period; (c) HyreCar had incurred significant expenses
transitioning to its new third-party insurance claims administrator
and processing claims incurred from prior periods; (d) HyreCar had
failed to appropriately price risk in its insurance products and
was experiencing elevated claims incidence as a result; (e) HyreCar
had been forced to dramatically reform its claims underwriting,
policies and procedures in response to unacceptably high claims
severity and customer complaints; and (f) as a result, HyreCar's
operations and prospects were misrepresented because the Company
was not on track to meet the financial estimates provided to
investors during the Class Period, and such estimates lacked a
reasonable basis in fact, including HyreCar's purported gross
margin, EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and
amortization), and net loss trajectories.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in HyreCar,
you have until October 26, 2021 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased HyreCar securities between May 14,
2021 and August 10, 2021, you may be entitled to compensation
without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hyrecar-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19274&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 80 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.
[GN]
HYRECAR INC: Thornton Law Reminds of October 26 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors who purchased HyreCar Inc.
securities (NASDAQ:HYRE) between May 14, 2021 and August 10, 2021
may seek to participate in the case as a Lead Plaintiff. Interested
investors may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor protection
team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/HyreCar for more information.
Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917.
A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of
HYRE. Investors do not need to be the Lead Plaintiff to recover as
class members if the case is successful.
The case alleges that HyreCar and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (i)
HyreCar had materially understated its insurance reserves; (ii)
HyreCar had systematically failed to pay valid insurance claims
incurred prior to the Class Period; (iii) HyreCar had incurred
significant expenses transitioning to its new third-party insurance
claims administrator and processing claims incurred from prior
periods; (iv) HyreCar had failed to appropriately price risk in its
insurance products and was experiencing elevated claims incidence
as a result; and (v) HyreCar had been forced to dramatically reform
its claims underwriting, policies, and procedures in response to
unacceptably high claims severity and customer complaints.
Interested HyreCar investors have until October 26, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class
members in managing the class action. Investors do not need to be a
lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. If investors choose
to take no action, they can remain an absent class member. The
class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law Firm is
not currently representing a plaintiff who filed a complaint but is
investigating the case on behalf of investors interested in being a
lead plaintiff.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/HyreCar
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. [GN]
INGENIOUS DESIGNS: Reaches Class Settlement in Consumer Safety Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If you purchased a My Little Steamer Go Mini or Deluxe, you may be
eligible to take part in a settlement over alleged product safety
issues.
Anyone who purchased a Joy/JM-branded My Little Steamer between
Jan. 1, 2002, and Dec. 31, 2020, is eligible to make a claim.
Ingenious Designs allegedly violated consumer protection laws and
became unjustly enriched by selling the unsafe products.
Awards will vary, but Class Members who file valid claims will be
eligible to receive as much as the full purchase price of the
steamer, depending on when the purchase was made and whether they
have proof of purchase and destruction.
There is no claim form deadline for this settlement.[GN]
INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE: Deadline for Class Cert Filing Extended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, v. INTERMOUNTAIN
HEALTHCARE, INC. and SELECTHEALTH, INC., Case No.
2:18-cv-00807-RJS-JCB (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Shelby
entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to extend deadline
to file motion for class certification.
Judge Shelby says that the due date for Plaintiff's anticipated
motion for class certification is extended to no sooner than 90
days after the Defendants' motion to dismiss is ruled upon or
otherwise resolved.
Intermountain Healthcare is a not-for-profit healthcare system and
is a healthcare provider in the Intermountain West of the United
States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VhUBes at no extra charge.[CC]
KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 30 disclosed that
purchasers of Katapult Holdings, Inc. f/k/a FinServ Acquisition
Corp. (NASDAQ: KPLT) securities between December 18, 2020 and
August 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until October
26, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Katapult
class action lawsuit. The Katapult class action lawsuit charges
Katapult and certain of its top executives with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Katapult class action lawsuit
was commenced on August 27, 2021 in the Southern District of New
York and is captioned McIntosh v. Katapult Holdings, Inc., No.
21-cv-07251.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Katapult class action
lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can
also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling
800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff
motions for the Katapult class action lawsuit must be filed with
the court no later than October 26, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: FinServ was a blank check company, or special
purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"), formed for the purpose of
effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition,
stock purchase, reorganization, or similar business combination
with one or more businesses. On December 18, 2020, FinServ
announced that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement
with legacy Katapult.
The Katapult class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose that: (i) Katapult was experiencing declining
e-commerce retail sales and consumer spending, (ii) despite
Katapult's assertions that it delivers a clear and compelling value
proposition to both consumers and merchants, transforming the way
nonprime consumers shop for essential goods and enabling merchant
access to this underserved segment, Katapult lacked visibility into
its consumers' future buying behavior; and (iii) as a result,
defendants' positive statements about Katapult's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On August 10, 2021, Katapult issued a press release announcing
disappointing financial results for the second quarter of 2021
including a net loss of $8.1 million, compared to $5.1 million in
net income for the second quarter of 2020. Katapult further
disclosed that it "observed meaningful [negative] changes in both
e-commerce retail sales forecasts and consumer spending behavior"
and retracted its full year 2021 guidance, claiming it could not
"accurately predict our consumer's buying behaviors for the
remainder of the year." On this news, Katapult's share price fell
more than 56%, damaging investors.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP has launched a dedicated SPAC Task
Force to protect investors in blank check companies and seek
redress for corporate malfeasance. Comprised of experienced
litigators, investigators, and forensic accountants, the SPAC Task
Force is dedicated to rooting out and prosecuting fraud on behalf
of injured SPAC investors. The rise in blank check financing poses
unique risks to investors. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP's SPAC
Task Force represents the vanguard of ensuring integrity, honesty,
and justice in this rapidly developing investment arena.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Katapult
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Katapult class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is
generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the Katapult class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Katapult class action lawsuit. An investor's ability
to share in any potential future recovery of the Katapult class
action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp.
Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for
investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any
other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
KELLOGG CO: Class Action Settlement Final Submissions Set Sept. 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you purchased "heart healthy" or "lightly sweetened" Kellogg
breakfast cereals, you could be eligible to claim a share in a $13
million settlement.
The Class includes anyone in the United States who purchased one of
the following products for household use between Aug. 29, 2012, and
May 1, 2020:
-- Kellogg's Original Raisin Bran and Kellogg's Raisin Bran Crunch
cereals in a package stating "heart healthy"
-- Kellogg's Smart Start Original Antioxidants cereal in a package
stating "heart healthy" and/or "lightly sweetened"
-- Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats Bite Size (Original, Maple Brown
Sugar, Strawberry, or Blueberry varieties), Big Bites (Original
variety), Little Bites (Chocolate or Cinnamon Roll varieties), or
Touch of Fruit in the Middle (Mixed Berry and Raspberry varieties)
cereals in a package stating "lightly sweetened"
The plaintiff had alleged that while the products were advertised
as being "lightly sweetened" or "heart healthy," they actually
contain large amounts of added sugar, making them unhealthy.
Each claimant will receive a different payment amount based on the
number and type of covered products they purchased, but the
estimated average award is expected to be about $16.09.
Claims in this settlement must be submitted by Sept. 7, 2021.[GN]
KROGER CO: Class Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set Sept. 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
If you live in California and bought Kroger bread crumbs, you may
be able to make a claim in a class action settlement resolving
claims of false advertising.
The Class includes all California residents who purchased Kroger
Bread Crumbs in California between Jan.1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2015,
for personal or household use and not for resale or distribution.
The grocery chain falsely advertised the product as having "0g
Trans Fat," according to a class action lawsuit.
Those who submit a claim without providing proof of purchase can
claim an estimated $17.50, while those who can provide receipts may
claim up to $100.Claims must be filed by Sept. 20, 2021. [GN]
LIVE VENTURES: Thornton Law Reminds of October 12 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors who purchased Live Ventures
Incorporated securities (NASDAQ: LIVE) between December 28, 2016
and August 3, 2021 may seek to participate in the case as a Lead
Plaintiff. Interested investors may contact the Thornton Law Firm's
investor protection team by visiting
www.tenlaw.com/cases/LiveVentures for more information. Investors
may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917. A class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of LIVE.
Investors do not need to be the Lead Plaintiff to recover as class
members if the case is successful.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/LiveVentures
The case alleges that Live Ventures and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (i)
Live Ventures' earnings per share for fiscal year 2016 was actually
only $6.33 per share; (ii) Live Ventures used an artificially low
share count to boost the earnings per share by 40%; (iii) Live
Ventures had overstated pre-tax income for fiscal year 2016 by 20%
by including $915,500 of "other income" related to certain
amendments that were not negotiated until after the close of the
fiscal year; (iv) Live Ventures' acquisition of ApplianceSmart did
not close during the first quarter of 2017; (v) using December 30,
2017 as the "acquisition date" and recognizing income therefrom did
not conform to generally accepted accounting principles; (vi) by
falsely stating that the acquisition closed during the quarter,
Live Ventures recognized bargain purchase gain, which enabled Live
Ventures to report positive net income in what would otherwise have
been an unprofitable quarter; and (vii) between fiscal year 2016
and fiscal year 2018, Live Ventures' CEO received approximately 94%
more in compensation than was disclosed to investors.
Interested Live Ventures investors have until October 12, 2021 to
retain counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are
interested to do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. Investors do
not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. If
investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class
member. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification
occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law
Firm is not currently representing a plaintiff who filed a
complaint but is investigating the case on behalf of investors
interested in being a lead plaintiff.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/LiveVentures
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.[GN]
MDL 2981: Court Resolves Google's Bid to Seal in Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
21-md-02981-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James Donato of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California has entered an order
resolving Google's renewed application to seal and motion for a
stay.
In a prior order, the Court denied the Google Defendants' request
to seal portions of the four complaints, which would have limited
the public's right of access to the court proceedings in the
high-profile multidistrict antitrust litigation. The reasons for
the denial were straightforward. "Judicial records are public
documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to
access by default." As the party seeking to seal the complaints,
Google had "the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by
meeting the 'compelling reasons' standard."
The Court explained that to seal portions of the complaints -- the
documents that are the heart of this, and every, lawsuit -- Google
was required to "articulate compelling reasons supported by
specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of
access and the public policies favoring disclosure." Conclusory
statements by a party about potential harm from public disclosure,
or mere hypothesis or conjecture, will not do. The fact that the
parties may have designated a document as confidential under a
stipulated protective order is also not enough to justify sealing.
"Such blanket orders" are inherently overbroad and do not provide
the "particularized showing" required to seal any individual court
record. In addition, different interests are at stake with the
right of access to court records than with the production of
documents during discovery.
The Court found that Google had an ample opportunity to demonstrate
a compelling reason for sealing, and squandered it. The governing
standards summarized here have been well-established for many
years, and the District's local rules clearly state the procedures
for Google to follow in making its case. Even so, the Court held
that Google presented nothing but generic and boilerplate
statements for its sealing requests.
Google gestured at its internal confidentiality practices as a
ground for sealing, which was nothing more than an ipse dixit
rationale. It mentioned the protective orders entered in the
litigation as a basis, but that carried little weight. The "factual
showing" it proffered was a declaration by a "Senior Legal Project
Manager" at Google stating that the disclosure of "non-public
information" could, "if revealed to competitors and potential
business counterparties, disadvantage Google in marketing and in
negotiations." This was literally all Google said with respect to
meeting the requirement of a specific factual demonstration of a
compelling reason, and it repeated the same statement over 140
times in the declaration, without any further commentary or
evidence. Overall, the Court determined that Google made no showing
whatsoever that might have favored keeping portions of the
complaints secret, and its "failure to meet that burden means that
the default posture of public access prevails."
Consequently, Google's sealing requests were denied. Pursuant to
Civil Local Rule 79-5(f), the Court directed the Plaintiff groups
to file unredacted versions of their respective complaints on ECF
within 7 days of the order, namely by Aug. 25, 2021. Epic beat that
deadline and filed its unredacted complaint on Aug. 19, 2021. The
other three plaintiff groups apparently agreed to hold off on
filing their unredacted complaints at Google's request. On Aug. 20,
2021, Google filed an "Emergency Motion to Stay the Court's Aug.
18, 2021 Order," as well as a "Renewed Application to Seal."
Judge Donato holds that Google has not established any reason to
disturb the Court's prior order. Even so, purely in the interest of
keeping the litigation on track, the Judge has reviewed the
"renewed application," which is directed to the complaints other
than Epic's, which was more circumspect about Google's information.
He also reviewed the declaration of a Finance Director for Google,
LLC,. These filings are more detailed in describing the material
Google is seeking to seal, and the reasons why Google believes each
item should be sealed. None of this is new information, and should
have been presented in the original request.
Most of the "renewed" sealing requests are still inappropriate.
Google has met its burden only for a small subset of the sealing
requests. The Court's rulings are stated in the attached chart. The
Court granted sealing for specific deal terms that might be used
against Google in other negotiations and deals. It declined to seal
information outside this specific category of sensitive information
because Google did not demonstrate a plausible risk to its business
from publication.
For example, Google did not present facts establishing that
disclosure of profits and revenues from portions of its business
would cause it commercial harm. Google may be uncomfortable that
the public will see this data, but "a litigant's embarrassment,
incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without
more, compel the Court to seal its records."
The Consumer Plaintiffs, the Developer Plaintiffs, and the
Plaintiff States are directed to file revised redacted versions of
their complaints which comport with the Order within seven days
from the date of the Order.
This resolves Google's renewed application to seal. Google's motion
for a stay, and the stipulated request for an order shortening time
for that motion are terminated.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5c978w4a from Leagle.com.
MINTED LLC: Class Action Claim Forms Deadline Set Sept. 16
----------------------------------------------------------
If your personal information was compromised during a May 2020 data
breach at Minted, you may be eligible to claim about $43.
The Class is made up of all U.S. residents who had a Minted
account, or who provided Minted with their name, address or other
personal information via email, the Minted website or other online
communication on or before June 27, 2020.
The Minted class action lawsuit accused the company of failing to
take appropriate steps to safeguard consumer data stolen during the
data breach.
Class Members who file a valid claim are expected to receive about
$43, depending on how many claims are filed.
Claim forms must be submitted by Sept. 16, 2021.[GN]
MOWI USA: Deadline of Mislabeled Class Claim Filing Set Sept. 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers who purchased Ducktrap River of Maine smoked salmon can
claim as much as $25 without proof of purchase thanks to a $1.3
million class action settlement.
Anyone in the United States who purchased a covered Ducktrap River
of Maine smoked Atlantic salmon product with packaging that
included the phrases "sustainably sourced," "all natural," and/or
"from Maine" between March 1, 2017, and May 13, 2021, is considered
a Class Member.
The plaintiff alleged Mowi USA misled consumers by marketing the
products as being sustainable and all natural, when in fact they
are not from Maine, not sustainably sourced, and treated with
artificial chemicals.
Each claimant will receive up to $2.50 for each package purchased.
Without proof of purchase, these claims will be capped at 10
packages, for a total of $25. There is no limit for claims
submitted with proof of purchase.
The claim deadline is Sept. 10, 2021. [GN]
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Court Tosses Dent Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD DENT, J.D. HILL,
JAMES MCMAHON, JEREMY NEWBERRY, RON PRITCHARD, RON STONE, KEITH VAN
HORNE, AND MARCELLUS WILEY, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, Case No.
3:14-cv-02324-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered
an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
This case has seen seven years of litigation, three motions to
dismiss, two trips to our court of appeals, and now a motion for
class certification. Plaintiffs move to certify a class of former
professional football players who played for 32 different teams
across 23 different states over a period of 35 years asserting a
common law claim of negligent voluntary undertaking for failure to
ensure the proper recordkeeping, administration, and distribution
of pain killers and other prescription drugs used in professional
football.
The Defendant National Football League is an unincorporated
association of 32 separately-owned and independently-operated
professional football "clubs" or teams. "The NFL promotes,
organizes, and regulates professional football in the United
States, but it does not employ individual football players; they
are employees of the teams for whom they play."
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 31, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tknLG8 at no extra charge.[CC]
NATIONAL HOSPITALITY: Lea Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jarid Lea, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Hospitality Services, LLC and
LOF2 Tinley TRS, LLC, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County Illinois, Chancery Division to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 23, 2021, and
assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-04494.
The Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint in the Chancery
Department of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois alleging
violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Curtis D. Ripley, Esq.
PEMBERTON LAW, P.L.L.P.
203 22nd Avenue West
Alexandria, MN 56308
Phone: (320) 759-3143
Email: c.ripley@pemlaw.com
NESTLE CORP: E.D. California Denies Stuckey's Bid to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDRE KENNETH STUCKEY, Plaintiff v. NESTLE
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00511-SKO (PC)
(E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California:
(i) denied the Plaintiff's motions to certify the case as
class action and for leave to file a class action
complaint; and
(ii) denied as moot the Plaintiff's motion for an extension of
time to file a class action complaint.
Plaintiff Stuckey is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in the action. He moves the Court to certify the
case as a class action and for leave to file a "class action
complaint."
Judge Oberto explains that a party requesting class certification
must demonstrate that "(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of
all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or
fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the
class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class."
Judge Oberto holds that the Plaintiff, as a prisoner proceeding pro
se, is unable to satisfy these prerequisites. She says, it is well
established that pro se prisoner plaintiffs are unable to fairly
represent and adequately protect the interests of a class, as
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). A litigant appearing in
propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than
himself, and it is plain error to permit an imprisoned litigant who
is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class
action.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/jp92zrmm from Leagle.com.
NEW YORK CITY: Chalmers Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRYL CHALMERS, DARREN
CONNORS, GLENN MENDEZ, JAMES NOVA, and FATIMA Q. ROSEMOND, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, and AFSCME
DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 LOCAL 2507, on behalf of its members, v. CITY
OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:20-cv-03389-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the individual
plaintiffs Darryl Chalmers, Darren Connors, Glenn Mendez, James
Nova, and Fatima Rosemond ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying a proposed class and subclass;
2. appointing their undersigned lawyers from the firms of
Mehri & Skalet PLLC and Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP, be
appointed as class counsel; and
3. excluding the City of New York's expert report and
testimony from consideration in connection with the class
certification motion.
The proposed class is:
"all persons who have been employed by the City as fire
protection inspectors or associate fire protection
inspectors (together "FPIs") in the Fire Department of New
York ("FDNY") at any time between May 1, 2017 (three years
prior to the filing of the Complaint) and the date a class
is certified."
The Plaintiffs propose that the class be certified to
pursue the claim that the City intentionally discriminated
in compensation against the class members because they
were primarily racial minorities, as reflected in
comparisons of their compensation to that paid to persons
employed by the City as inspectors (collectively "BIs") in
the City's Department of Buildings ("DOB").
The proposed subclass is:
"all persons who do not self-identify as white and who
have been employed by the City as FPIs in the FDNY at any
time between May 1, 2017 and the date a subclass is
certified."
The Plaintiffs propose that the subclass be certified to
pursue the claim that the City's policies and practices
identified in the Plaintiffs' accompanying memorandum of
law had a disparate impact in compensation against the
subclass members in that the subclass members were paid
less than BIs, who had at least 60% larger percentages of
white employees than did FPIs each year.
A copy of Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Aug. 30, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zLO1f9 at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Plaintiffs are:
Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq.
Sara Wyn Kane, Esq.
Matthew Berman, Esq.
VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
Garden City, New York 11530
Telephone: (516) 203-7180
Facsimile: (516)706-0248
E-mail: rvalli@vkvlawyers.com
skane@vkvlawyers.com
mberman@vkvlawyers.com
- and -
Michael D. Lieder, Esq.
Ellen Eardley, Esq.
Aisha Rich, Esq.
MEHRI & SKALET PLLC
1250 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 822-5100
Facsimile: (202) 822-4997
E-mail: mlieder@findjustice.com
eeardley@findjustice.com
arich@findjustice.com
OMNIPOINT MANAGEMENT: Time Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jennifer Hawthorne, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Omnipoint
Management Solutions, LLC; and DNF Associates, LLC, Case No.
6:21-cv-06082-RTD (W.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order extending her time to file class certification and,
alternatively, to file first amended complaint.
Omnipoint is a professional company that helps people who have
wandered toward a financial crisis.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 31, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yLMdS3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Corey D. McGaha, Esq.
COREY D. MCGAHA PLLC
5507 Ranch Drive, Suite 104-D
Little Rock, AR 72223
Telephone: (501) 205-4027
Facsimile: (501) 367-8208
E-mail: cmcgaha@mcgahalaw.com
- and -
Todd M. Turner, Esq.
Dan O. Turner, Esq.
TURNER AND TURNER, PA
501 Crittenden Street
P.O. Box 480
Arkadelphia, AR 71923
Telephone: (870) 246-9844
Facsimile: (888) 866-9897
E-mail: todd@tandt.net
dan@tandt.net
PHILIPS CANADA: Faces Class Action Over CPAP Breathing Devices
--------------------------------------------------------------
vocm.com reports that St. John's lawyer Bob Buckingham has launched
a national class action against Philips Canada as a result of the
recent recall of a large number of Philips' CPAP breathing devices
used to treat sleep apnea.
The recall was issued as the result of potential health risks
related to sound abatement foam used in the devices. Health Canada
says reports had been received about the break down of
sound-reducing foam used in the machines resulting in potential
health risks.
Buckingham says the foam can degrade into toxic particles which
could be ingested.
The impact on those affected by the recall is "profound and
troublesome" says Buckingham, noting that the three lead plaintiffs
have separately identified "individual and unique serious
consequences and harms likely arising from the recalled respiratory
devices."
Buckingham is asking anyone who has been using one of the recalled
devices to reach out by phone at 739-6688, or by email at
bob@buckinghamlaw.ca. [GN]
PICNIC TIME: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Picnic Time, Inc. The
case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Picnic Time, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-07404 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Picnic Time, Inc. -- https://www.picnictime.com/ -- was founded in
1982. The company's line of business includes the wholesale
distribution of non-durable goods.[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
POWER HOME: Landy Sues Over Unsolicited Autodialed Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
Brennan Landy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. POWER HOME TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a North Carolina limited
liability company, Case No. 5:21-cv-00341-FL (E.D.N.C., Aug. 23,
2021), is brought against the Defendant to stop the Defendant's
practice of placing (or having placed on their behalf) telephone
calls using an artificial or pre-recorded voice to the cellular
telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express
written consent, including to those on the National Do Not Call
Registry, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by the
Defendant's conduct.
According to the complaint, Power Home casts its marketing net too
wide. That is, in an attempt to promote its business and to
generate leads, the Defendant conducted (and continues to conduct)
a wide-scale telemarketing campaign that features the repeated
making of unsolicited autodialed calls and consumers' cellphones
without any prior express consent to make these calls. The
Defendant (or third parties acting on Defendant's behalf and for
its benefit) place these calls to telephones using pre-recorded
avatar technology without consumers' prior express consent, written
or otherwise, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person over the age of 18 who resides in
Ardmore, Pennsylvania.
The Defendant is a home security provider headquartered in North
Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
999 E Mexico Ave., Suite 300
Denver, Colorado 80210
Phone: 720.213.0675
Fax: 303.927.0809
Email: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
- and -
L. Phillip Hornthal, III, Esq.
301 East Main Street
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Phone: 252-698-0214
Fax: 252-335-4223
Email: phornthal@hrem.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Rodriguez Class Cert. Bid Junked as Moot
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rodriguez v. The Procter &
Gamble Company, Case No. 1:17-cv-22652 (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Kathleen M. Williams entered an order denying as moot Plaintiff's
motion for class certification in light of the class action
settlement.
The nature of suit states other civil rights.
Procter & Gamble is an American multinational consumer goods
corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, founded in 1837 by
William Procter and James Gamble.[CC]
RAVALLI COUNTY, MT: Runs Scheme With High Pretrial Fees, Says Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
missoulacurrent.com reports that a federal class action lawsuit
filed in Missoula District Court is accusing Ravalli County of
running a "wealth-based discrimination scheme" by requiring
pretrial arrestees to pay exorbitant fees to get out, or stay out
of jail without considering their ability to pay.
The suit, led by Teri Lea Evenson-Childs and on behalf of others,
claims the fees stem from pretrial supervision and are levied
before an arrestee is released from jail. The suit names the
Ravalli County Sheriff's Office as the defendant and was filed by
Equal Justice Under Law based in Washington, D.C.
"The (county) refuses to release pretrial arrestees from jail until
pretrial arrestees pay these fees, even after pretrial arrestees
have paid their bail amount or have been ordered by the court to be
released," the suit claims. "If pretrial arrestees are released
from jail, the (county) threatens to send they back to jail if they
fall behind on their fee payments."
According to the plaintiffs, the county's approach to pretrial
supervision essentially pushes arrestees further into the criminal
legal system and entraps them in a cycle of debt-induced poverty.
By having to pay the fees, pretrial arrestees are deprived of their
property without due process.
The fees also act as an extension of bail amounts, since the county
requires the fees be paid to be released from jail - and to stay
out of jail. That amounts to a violation of due process and equal
protection from discrimination based on wealth, the suit alleges.
"Ravalli County, like many counties throughout the United States,
has outsourced onto the backs of its poorest residents its
obligation to fund its operations," the suit states. "The county
enforces its taxation-by-force system through constant threat of
incarceration."
According to the suit, the pretrial fees incurred by an arrestee
can amount to several hundreds dollars per month. Supervision costs
$105 a month and drug patches cost $75 a month in a one-time
administrative fee, plus $65 every 10 days.
A GPS ankle monitor includes a $75 one-time administrative fee plus
$690 per month.
In many cases, the suit contends, an arrestee faces multiple
conditions. One who is subject to supervision, drug patches and a
GPS ankle monitor must pay $90 every month on top of $150 in
administrative fees.
A person working full time on minimum wage makes around $1,400 a
month while the average price of a one-bedroom apartment in
Hamilton is around $840 a month.
"Pretrial fees are a ransom fee for pretrial arrestees: imposed
without due process and under threat of harm (incarceration)," the
suit states. "A pretrial arrestee's freedom hinges on continuing to
pay money to the Sheriff's Office, which, like a mafioso charging a
'protection' fee, threatens harm if pretrial arrestees do not
pay."
The lawsuit seeks an order enjoining the county from continuing its
fee-based practice, along with compensation for damages suffered by
the plaintiffs due to the county's "unconstitutional and unlawful
conduct."
The suit isn't the first of its kind in western Montana. In 2018, a
Ravalli County woman filed a class-action lawsuit against the City
of Missoula claiming it had illegally assessed a $25 surcharge as
part of sentencing in Missoula Municipal Court.
That lawsuit sought to recover more than $500,000 in court-imposed
surcharges and pass them back to thousands of violators sentenced
in Missoula Municipal Court over the prior five years. [GN]
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Extension for Class Cert. Bid Filing Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELEANORE BRADSHAW and
REBECCA PEREZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES L.P., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 1:21-CV-00461-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order relieving them from the
90-day deadline for filing motion for class certification and
setting deadline at a later date.
The Plaintiffs commenced action June 7, 2021 against Resurgent
Capital for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA") and North Carolina Debt Collection Act ("NCDCA").
On June 22, 2021, Counsel for Defendant executed waiver of the
service of summons.
On August 19, 2021, the Plaintiffs consented to Defendant's request
for extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint granted
by Text Order.
On August 30, 2021, Counsel for Plaintiffs contacted Counsel for
Defendant for consent to the Court modifying the 90-day period in
LR 23.1(b). The Defendant consents to the relief requested of
extending the deadline to move for class certification and reserves
all objections as to the propriety of certification.
Resurgent is a manager and servicer of domestic and international
consumer debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 30, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38Fj6Fr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
S. Michael Dunn, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone (919) 600-5000
Facsimile (919) 600-5035
E-mail: sharris@milberg.com
pwallace@milberg.com
michael.dunn@milberg.com
ROSANNA IMPORTS: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rosanna Imports, Inc.
The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Rosanna Imports, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-07405 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Rosanna Inc. -- https://www.rosannainc.com/ -- is an international
award-winning tableware and home decor design house with fresh and
affordable products distributed worldwide.[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
ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE: Edge Suit Removed to N.D. West Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Patricia Edge, in her own right and as
representative of a class of persons similarly situated v.
Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation, Case No. 21-C-139, was
removed from the Circuit Court of Harrison County, West Virginia,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West
Virginia on Sept. 2, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00122-TSK to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation --
https://www.roundpointmortgage.com/ -- provides mortgage finance
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason E. Causey, Esq.
BORDAS & BORDAS, PLLC
1358 National Rd
Wheeling, WV 26003
Phone: (304) 242-8410
Fax: (304) 242-3936
Email: jason@bordaslaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Carrie Goodwin Fenwick, Esq.
Lucas R. White, Esq.
GOODWIN & GOODWIN, LLP
300 Summers Street, Ste. 1500
PO Box 2107
Charleston, WV 25328-2107
Phone: (304) 346-7000
Fax: (304) 344-9692
Email: cgf@goodwingoodwin.com
lucas@goodwingoodwin.com
SAGE ECOENTERPRISES: Conditional Class Cert Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIANA KARPELLS KUEHN On
Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. SAGE
ECOENTERPRISES, LLC, and JAMES R. TALLEY doing business as Green
Sage Cafe, Case No. 1:21-cv-00031-MOC-WCM (W.D.N.C.), the Hon.
Judge Carleton Metcalf entered an order that:
-- The Motion to Stay is granted, and this action is
stayed as to Defendant James R. Talley until further Order
of the Court. As previously ordered, the parties shall
file a status report with the Court every 90 days until
the bankruptcy proceeding is completed or the stay is
lifted, whichever first occurs.
-- The Plaintiff's Motion for conditional class certification
and for the issuance of court-supervised notice is denied
without prejudice.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for leave to file amended complaint
is denied without prejudice.
-- The Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification
and for the Issuance of Court-Supervised Notice and
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint may
be renewed following completion of the bankruptcy
proceeding or upon the lifting of the stay, whichever
first occurs.
Judge Metcalf finds that the most appropriate course of action
under the present circumstances is for Plaintiff's claims against
Talley to be stayed, as the claims against Sage are stayed.
Plaintiff remains free to apply to the Bankruptcy Court for the
stay to be lifted, both as to Sage and Talley. Following the
lifting of the stay as to Plaintiff's claims or the completion of
the bankruptcy proceeding, Plaintiff may renew her Motion for
Conditional Class Certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YltrnX at no extra charge.[CC]
SAINT-GOBAIN: Sept. 8-9 Meetings Scheduled for $65MM Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan J. Lyons, writing for Times Union, reports that two public
informational meetings are scheduled for Sept. 8 and 9 on a
proposed $65 million settlement in a class-action case involving
three companies blamed for polluting public and private water
supplies in and around the village of Hoosick Falls.
The meetings will take place at an open-air pavilion at the
Reynolds/Gilchrest Skating Rink on Barton Avenue in Hoosick Falls,
according to attorneys for plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit.
An informational website has also been set up to provide details on
the proposed settlement:
http://www.hoosickfallspfoasettlement.com.
Residents affected by the pollution have until Dec. 9 to notify the
court if they wish to be excluded from the settlement. That option
would allow someone to be part of other lawsuits against the
companies responsible for the pollution or other parties.
Objections to the settlement also must be filed by Dec. 9.
Those who wish to receive a payment and take part in the settlement
must submit a claim form by Jan. 24. Online claim forms will be
available on Sept. 7.
In December 2015, a Times Union story revealed state and local
officials had decided not to warn residents to stop drinking the
water despite the health risks associated with the toxic
manufacturing chemical. A period of unrest in the village followed
and details about the steps that officials had taken to downplay
the health risks were exposed.
In July, U.S. District Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn issued a
ruling granting preliminary approval to the proposed settlement,
which would secure cash payments and long-term medical monitoring
for thousands of property owners and residents, including those who
were found to have elevated levels of a toxic manufacturing
substance in their bloodstream.
A hearing on the final settlement is scheduled for Feb. 2 at U.S.
District Court in Albany.
The preliminary settlement was reached in a proposed class-action
lawsuit filed in 2016 in U.S. District Court in Albany. The
complaint accused Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics and Honeywell
International -- and later 3M and DuPont Co. -- of each having
roles in the decades-long pollution of the community's water
supplies, which are contaminated with perfluorinated chemicals that
were used at various factories in the village.
For many current and former residents, the settlement is intended
to compensate them for the potential health consequences of their
exposure to the chemicals, as well as the potential loss of
property value, and to provide a system of early detection for any
related health issues they may suffer in the years ahead.
Much of the focus in the case has been a manufacturing plant that
Saint-Gobain has operated on McCaffrey Street in Hoosick Falls
since the 1990s. The plant is adjacent to the village's water
treatment plant, which pulls water from underground wells that have
been polluted with perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA. Honeywell's
predecessor corporation, Allied Signal, operated the facility from
1986 to 1996, one of five companies that ran the plant since 1956.
The payments under the proposed settlement could be divided among
roughly 1,800 qualifying property owners, and the amounts each
would receive will depend on multiple factors, including the number
of certified class members. Some also may be entitled to medical
monitoring if the level of PFOA that had been detected in their
blood was more than 1.86 parts per billion. Others could also be
compensated based on the loss of their property value, which would
be measured against the value of their residential property in 2015
— before the stigma of the pollution had arguably damaged the
local real estate market.
Another portion of the settlement -- categorized as the "nuisance
settlement class" -- sets aside $7.7 million that would be used to
compensate those who had a private well contaminated with PFOA, if
the pollution was detected on or after Dec. 16, 2015. That portion
of the settlement would apply to individuals and may include more
than one person per household, including tenants. That payout could
be about $10,000 per person.
The settlement would not prevent individuals from filing a separate
lawsuit against the companies if, for instance, they contract a
serious disease in the future that could allegedly be linked to the
water contamination.
The settlement also would allocate nearly $23 million to fund 10
years of medical monitoring so that qualified residents from the
village -- and the town of Hoosick -- would be screened for
multiple health conditions linked to PFOA exposure, including
kidney and testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease,
preeclampsia/pregnancy-induced hypertension and medically diagnosed
high cholesterol. To qualify for the medical monitoring, someone
would have needed to drink water from a contaminated source -- the
village municipal system or a private well -- for at least six
months between 1996 and 2016.
The proposal includes $1.04 million for case expenses incurred and
$12.4 million for attorneys' fees -- about 19 percent of the total
-- "for their efforts in bringing about the settlement," it
states.
The 10 adult plaintiffs in the lead case -- all of them current and
former residents of the village of Hoosick Falls or town of Hoosick
-- would also split an additional $250,000 under the proposal.
DuPont and 3M are targeted in the lawsuits for their roles in
discovering, processing or distributing the toxic substances, which
are used to manufacture nonstick and heat-resistant products from
ski clothing to wiring for jet aircraft.
The settlement in Albany was reached after the companies had lost a
series of court rulings over the past four years, including their
arguments for having the case dismissed and excluding long-term
medical monitoring. DuPont did not agree to the settlement, and the
case against them in Albany will continue on a path toward trial.
[GN]
SESEN BIO: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of October 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Sesen Bio,
Inc. ("Sesen Bio" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SESN) between December
21, 2020 and August 17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Sesen Bio securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than October 18, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.
Sesen Bio investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and
how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here, or
email investorinfo@lchb.com, or call Sharon M. Lee of Lieff
Cabraser at 1-800-541-7358.
Background on the Sesen Bio Securities Class Litigation
Sesen Bio, headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is a
late-stage clinical company that purports to develop targeted
fusion protein therapeutics for cancer treatments. The Company's
lead product is the drug Vicineum, a treatment for bacillus
Calmette-Gurin ("BCG")-unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder
cancer ("NMIBC"). In August 2019, Sesen Bio reported preliminary
efficacy data from its ongoing Phase 3 clinical trial for Vicineum.
In December 2020, the Company submitted its Biologics License
Application ("BLA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") for Vicineum.
The actions allege that throughout the Class Period, defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) more than 2,000 violations of
trial protocol in Sesen Bio's clinical trial for Vicineum, 215 of
which were classified as "major"; (2) three clinical investigators
were found guilty of "serious noncompliance," including
"back-dating data"; (3) Sesen Bio's submission of tainted data
related to the BLA for Vicineum; and (4) incidents of Vicineum
leaking into patients' bodies in the Company's clinical trials,
leading to side effects including liver failure and liver toxicity,
and increasing the risks for fatal, drug-induced liver injury.
Furthermore, defendants failed to reveal that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's BLA for Vicineum was not likely to be
approved and that there was a reasonable likelihood that Sesen Bio
would be required to conduct additional trials to show the efficacy
and safety of Vicineum.
On August 13, 2021, Sesen Bio revealed that the FDA declined to
approve its BLA for Vicineum. In its complete response letter
("CRL"), the FDA outlined "recommendations specific to additional
clinical/statistical data and analyses in addition to Chemistry,
Manufacturing and Controls (CMC) issues pertaining to a recent
pre-approval inspection and product quality." On this news, the
Company's stock price fell $2.80 per share, or 57%, from its
closing price of $4.91 on August 12, 2021, to close at $2.11 per
share on August 13, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Then, on August 16, 2021, Sesen Bio announced it needed "to do a
clinical trial to provide the additional efficacy and safety data
necessary for the FDA to assess the benefit-risk profile, which is
the basis for approval." As a result, the Company expected that it
could not resubmit its BLA until 2023. On this news, the Company's
stock price fell $0.89 per share, or 42%, from its closing price of
$2.11 on August 12, 2021, to close at $1.22 per share on August 16,
2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Finally, on August 18, 2021, before the market opened, the health
and medicine news site STAT published an article revealing
"thousands of violations of study rules, damning investigator
conduct, and worrying signs of toxicity the company [Sesen] did not
publicly disclose" regarding its clinical trial for Vicineum. The
STAT article was reportedly based on cited "hundreds of pages of
internal documents" and "three people familiar with the matter." On
this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.20 per share, or 13%,
from its closing price of $1.51 on August 17, 2021, to close at
$1.31 per share on August 18, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume. [GN]
SHUTTERFLY LLC: BIPA Class Action Suit Filing Deadline Set Sept. 14
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain Illinois consumers will benefit from a $6.75 million
Shutterfly settlement resolving privacy-violation claims.
The Class is made up of Illinois residents who appear in a
photograph maintained on Shutterfly at any time between June 11,
2014, and the date of final approval of the settlement, currently
set for Sept. 8, 2021.
The plaintiff in a class action lawsuit alleged Shutterfly violated
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by obtaining,
collecting and storing Class Members' biometric data via facial
recognition software without first obtaining consent.
No proof of purchase is necessary. Class Members who file a valid
claim will depend on the number of claims filed.
Claim forms must be submitted by Sept. 14, 2021. [GN]
SPECTRUM PHARMA: Luo Hits Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------
Jose Chung Luo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Joseph W.
Turgeon, Kurt A. Gustafson and Francois Lebel, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-05151, (D. Nev., August 31, 2021), seeks to recover damages
caused by violations of federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Spectrum is a biopharmaceutical company that develops and
commercializes oncology and hematology drug products. Its products
under development include, among others, Rolontis (eflapegrastim),
a novel long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for
chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. In December 2018, Spectrum
submitted a Biologics License Application (BLA) to the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) for Rolontis as a treatment for
chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Defendants allegedly failed to
disclose that the Rolontis manufacturing facility maintained
deficient controls and/or procedures that decreased the likelihood
that the FDA would approve the Rolontis BLA in its current form.
On this news, Spectrum's stock price fell $0.70 per share, or
21.54%, to close at $2.55 per share on August 6, 2021.
Luo acquired Spectrum Pharmaceuticals securities and lost upon the
revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
- and -
Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Esq.
MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD.
7915 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 104
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Telephone: (702) 330-4505
Facsimile: (702) 825-0141
Email: andrew@mlolegal.com
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Nov. 1 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Spectrum" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: SPPI) in the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Spectrum securities between
December 27, 2018 and August 5, 2021, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until November 1, 2021 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Spectrum is a biopharmaceutical company that develops and
commercializes oncology and hematology drug products. The Company's
products under development include, among others, ROLONTIS
(eflapegrastim), a novel long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating
factor for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.
In December 2018, Spectrum submitted a Biologics License
Application ("BLA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") for ROLONTIS as a treatment for chemotherapy-induced
neutropenia (the "ROLONTIS BLA").
On August 6, 2021, Spectrum announced receipt of a Complete
Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA regarding the ROLONTIS BLA.
The CRL cited deficiencies related to manufacturing and indicated
that a reinspection of the Company's manufacturing facility will be
necessary.
On this news, Spectrum's stock price fell $0.70 per share, or
21.54%, to close at $2.55 per share on August 6, 2021.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the ROLONTIS manufacturing
facility maintained deficient controls and/or procedures; (ii) the
foregoing deficiencies decreased the likelihood that the FDA would
approve the ROLONTIS BLA in its current form; (iii) Spectrum had
therefore materially overstated the ROLONTIS BLA's approval
prospects; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Spectrum shares and suffered
a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or
Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at
(212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
SPEEDWAY LLC: Court Decertifies FLSA Collective in DaRosa Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH DaROSA, WILLS
CLERVIL, ALKA DAVIS, MARTIN SCHUTZIUS, and DANIEL SCHULZ, on behalf
of themselves and similarly situated employees, v. SPEEDWAY LLC,
Case No. 9-10791-RGS (D. Mass.), the Court entered an order:
1. allowing the defendant's motion to decertify the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective; and
2. denying the plaintiffs' motion to certify classes under
state law claims.
The Plaintiffs Joseph DaRosa, Wills Clervil, Alka Davis, Martin
Schutzius, and Daniel Schulz, former General Managers (GMs) of
convenience stores operated by defendant Speedway LLC, allege that
they were misclassified as exempt salaried employees to their
financial disadvantage.
They seek to represent other similarly situated employees in a
national collective pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), and statewide classes under the wage laws of Massachusetts,
New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.
Speedway is a national company that operates thousands of
convenience stores. Speedway categorizes the "complexity" of
individual stores on a scale of Level 1 to Level 6. The scale is
based on the store's sales volume, aggregate labor hours,
turnover/employment, and other operational markers. Level 1 stores
have the lowest sales volume, labor hours, and number of employees,
while Level 6 stores are at the opposite end of the spectrum. The
stores are grouped into districts and regions based on their
geographic location. A District Manager (DM) typically oversees a
dozen stores. DMs report to a Speedway Regional Manager.
In April of 2019, DaRosa singly filed the original Complaint as the
proposed lead plaintiff. As the GM of a Level 2 Speedway store in
Massachusetts, DaRosa claims that he was misclassified as an exempt
salaried employee. He alleges that he primarily worked alone in the
store or with one other employee and spent most of his time
performing non-managerial tasks such as assisting customers,
operating the cash register, stocking shelves, maintaining
inventory, and cleaning. DaRosa avers that he often worked more
than 40 hours a week, and that, had he been properly classified as
a non-exempt employee, he would have received overtime pay for the
hours over forty that he worked in each week. He asserts claims
under the FLSA and the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wage Act.
DaRosa also alleges that all GMs in Level 1 to Level 5 1 Speedway
stores are similarly misclassified under the same employment
practices.
In February of 2020, this court conditionally certified an FLSA
collective of Speedway GMs in level 1 to level 5 stores. In
response to a notice sent to potential members, 1,268 GMs from
Level 1 to Level 5 stores in 25 states opted into the FLSA
collective.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38AG40z at no extra charge.[CC]
STATE FARM: Martino Seeks Nov. 15 Extension to File Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA M. MARTINO, on behalf
of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
4:20-cv-00910-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order extending certain deadlines related to class
certification:
a. Class certification-related discovery shall be completed
on or before October 29, 2021;
b. Plaintiff's motion for class certification due on or
before November 15, 2021;
c. Defendant's opposition to the motion for class
certification due on or before December 20, 2021; and
d. Plaintiff's reply due on or before January 20, 2022.
On September 25, 2020, the Plaintiff filed her Complaint in the
Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri.
On November 12, 2020, the Defendant removed the instant action to
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 31, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38JToj8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq.
J. Brett Milbourn, Esq.
HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LC
2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 421-0700
Facsimile: (816) 421-0899
E-mail: bmilbourn@hab-law.com
jkronawitter@hab-law.com
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Student Files Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Sessa at dailyorange.com reports that a Syracuse University
student affected by a data breach that exposed the names and Social
Security numbers of nearly 10,000 students, alumni, and applicants
is suing the university for negligence.
The class action lawsuit, which was filed in Onondaga County
Supreme Court on Thursday, alleges that inadequate cybersecurity
protocols and poor staff training at SU left thousands of people's
personally identifiable information vulnerable. The plaintiff filed
the case after an unauthorized charge was made to his checking
account following the breach. He is requesting a trial by jury.
The university doesn't comment on pending litigation, said Sarah
Scalese, senior associate vice president for university
communications, in a statement to The Daily Orange.
The breach the lawsuit refers to occurred late on Sept. 25 after a
university employee fell victim to a phishing attack in which the
employee clicked a link and exposed their credentials to a
"malicious actor."
The university locked the compromised account on Sept. 28, and SU's
Information Technology Services tried to establish what information
had been exposed. The department didn't detect that any files were
accessed or copied by the unauthorized party but couldn't prove
that the files weren't accessed either, said Steven Bennett, senior
vice president for international programs and academic operations,
told The D.O. in February.
On Oct. 6, SU hired a firm that specializes in data security to
assist with the investigation. The firm finished its investigation
on Jan. 4, but it was unable to confirm whether files containing
names and Social Security numbers had been accessed. The university
sent letters to those whose information was exposed on Feb. 4.
The lawsuit alleges that SU's four-month delay notifying those
affected by the breach compounded the actual and potential harm of
the security failure.
SU officials defended their handling of the breach during an
interview with The D.O. in February. State law requires that
institutions inform people of data breaches via U.S. mail. Because
the independent firm SU partnered with to send the notification
letter had to track down the mailing addresses of applicants and
others not enrolled at the university, the process took
considerable time; still, SU said it believes its response time was
average or slightly above average, officials said.
In response to the breach, the university said it would establish a
task force to look at the management of digital documents.
University officials also said it will increase training for staff
to prevent another similar breach and will move the entire campus
to a two-factor authentication sign-in system.
SU partnered with Experian, a consumer credit and reporting
company, to provide temporary, free credit monitoring and identity
theft services to those affected by the breach. The lawsuit called
the services "insufficient" given the long-term consequences of
data breaches and alleged that SU offered those affected an
"unreasonably short window of opportunity" to claim the services.
Applicants, students, alumni and others affected by the breach
relied on SU to safeguard their information, the lawsuit reads,
"and while (SU) was in a position to protect against harm from a
data breach, (it) negligently and carelessly squandered that
opportunity." [GN]
TENNESSEE: Judge Grants Restraining Order on Schools' Mask Mandate
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cathryn Stout at chalkbeat.org reports that a federal judge has
temporarily blocked Gov. Bill Lee's executive order that allows
parents to opt out of mask requirements in Tennessee schools.
The governor's "opt-out provision interferes with plaintiffs'
ability to access services at their public schools through a
reasonable accommodation - required mask coverings," U.S. District
Judge Sheryl Lipman of Tennessee's Western District said Friday in
her statement.
Plaintiffs and Shelby County parents Brittany and Ryan Schwaigert,
and Emily Tremel filed a class action lawsuit against the governor
alleging that he violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
suit says his order allowing parents to circumvent a Shelby County
health ordinance requiring masks in schools in Memphis and its
suburbs jeopardizes the health and education of immunocompromised
children.
The temporary restraining order lasts until Sept. 17 or until
trumped by another action of the court. A preliminary hearing will
be held on Sept. 9, where the judge may rule to extend the ban or
reinstate the governor's order until a trial is conducted.
Attorney Brice Timmons, representing the plaintiffs, said that his
firm, Donati Law, has received calls from several concerned
parents.
"There are lots of parents of disabled children in Shelby County
getting organized," he said.
Jim Newsom, from the state's attorney general office, argued that
the lawsuit was premature because the parents had not exhausted the
appeals available through the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act.
The judge addressed that claim in her response, stating that the
plaintiffs sought "to protect their bodily health within a public
educational setting - protection provided by the Shelby County
Health Department through the enforcement of a mask mandate."
Become a Chalkbeat sponsor
In the state's initial response to the temporary restraining order
request, attorneys said, "The Court should not overlook the
incredible reach of plaintiffs' argument. If these claims do apply
to anyone in the employment context, and plaintiffs are right that
a mask mandate is required by the [Americans with Disabilities
Act], then nearly every employer and business open to the public
must also adopt a mandatory mask requirement for its employees and
patrons."
Although face coverings have proved to slow the spread of the
coronavirus, Lee, who is vaccinated and often seen wearing a mask,
has sent mixed messages about his views on masks in schools.
During an appearance on Fox News in May he said, "I don't think any
kid ought to wear a mask. If you want to follow the science, you
wouldn't have kids in a school wearing masks when kids do not get
sick from COVID."
But during an August press conference he switched positions,
saying, "If you want to protect your kid from the virus or from
quarantine, the best way to do that is to have your kid in school
with a mask."
The judge and lawyers for the plaintiffs referred to his comment in
August during the hearing, stating that the governor acknowledged
the positive public health implication of masking.
Universal masking has been a controversial issue in Tennessee and
many Republican led states where conservatives often argue that
mask mandates intrude on personal liberty. But what if one's
expression of personal liberty harms the well-being of another?
That's one of the questions that plaintiffs and their lawyers want
the courts to consider.
Tremel is the mother of an 11-year-old girl who attends Houston
Middle School in the Germantown Municipal School District in the
suburbs of Memphis. Tremel's daughter has a chromosomal abnormality
that causes episodic ataxia, which impairs movement and the nervous
system, and congenital nystagmus, which causes involuntary eye
movement.
Shortly after the governor allowed families to circumvent the
county mask requirement, Tremel's daughter was diagnosed with
COVID, and it has "disrupted" her school year, said Tremel.
The Schwaigerts are parents of a 13-year-old boy who attends West
Middle School in the Collierville Municipal School District, also
in the Memphis suburbs. Their son has autism and is
immunocompromised because of chemotherapy needed to manage tuberous
sclerosis complex, a genetic disorder that causes polycystic kidney
disease, epilepsy, and hypertension. Since the governor's order,
the teenager now goes to school 15 minutes late to avoid being in
the hall with unmasked children, missing part of his daily
instruction, his mother said.
On Wednesday, the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, a
Maryland-based nonprofit that promotes disability rights, filed a
brief in the case supporting the plaintiffs.
It said that the governor's order "obstructs access" to schools and
education and called the Tennessee lawsuit a case of national
importance.
It added that the final verdict will decide if "children with
disabilities have equal access to attend their public schools and
obtain an education alongside their non-disabled peers." [GN]
TEXAS: Lawyers File Class Suit Over First Amendment Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jerrick Adams at ballotpedia.org reports that lawyers file class
action complaint against State Bar of Texas On Aug. 30, three
members of the State Bar of Texas filed a class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas alleging
that the bar is violating their First Amendment rights.
About the complaint
The plaintiffs are attorneys Robert S. Bennett, Nachael Foster, and
Andrew Bayley. Their complaint is a class action suit on behalf of
"all Texas-licensed attorneys, past or present, and on either
active or inactive status, who have endured First Amendment
violations because of the Texas Bar's relevant unlawful conduct."
Richard A. Robins, who runs the website texasbarsunset.com,
represents the plaintiffs. The complaint names the Texas Bar "and
culpable officials within it" as defendants.
The complaint references the Fifth Circuit's July 2021 ruling in
McDonald v. Longley. In that case, a three-judge panel ruled that
because the Texas Bar engaged in ideological activities that were
not relevant to its core functions, compelling lawyers to join the
bar violated their First Amendment rights.
Referring to that decision, the complaint states that the Fifth
Circuit "ruled that the Defendants have impermissibly, unlawfully
and enduringly spent attorney members' coercively extracted annual
dues on ideological and political endeavors that are not germane to
regulating or improving the practice of law here in Texas." The
plaintiffs allege the bar has "continued demanding full dues
payments from the membership by no later than [August 31, 2021]. As
of the date of this filing, they have also offered no refunds for
their already sufficiently proven and established transgressions.
They continue proceeding callously, resulting in further damage to
the Class."
The plaintiffs allege that by requiring members to pay dues, the
bar violates their freedoms of association, speech, and-in some
cases-religion.
Reuters reports: "Texas Bar spokesman Amy Starnes said the
association is committed to complying with the 5th Circuit decision
in a timely manner, and is taking steps to update its policies and
procedures. She said the new complaint is being reviewed."
The case name and number are Bennett v. Texas (4:21-cv-02829).
About McDonald v. Longley
On March 6, 2019, plaintiffs Tony McDonald, Joshua Hammer, and Mark
Pulliam filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas claiming mandatory membership in the
State Bar of Texas violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment
rights. The plaintiffs alleged that the bar's opt-out process was
"inadequate to ensure that members are not coerced into funding the
Bar's political and ideological activities."
On May 29, 2020, the U.S. District Court ruled in the state bar's
favor. The plaintiffs appealed to the Fifth Circuit in June 2020.
On July 2, 2021, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit-Judges Don Willett, Jerry E. Smith, and
Stuart Kyle Duncan-overturned the district court's ruling and
returned the case to the lower court, saying the bar "engaged in
non-germane activities, so compelling the plaintiffs to join it
violates their First Amendment rights." The Fifth Circuit blocked
the state bar from requiring membership or dues of the plaintiffs
while the case is pending in the lower court. President Donald
Trump (R) appointed Willett and Duncan, and President Ronald Reagan
(R) appointed Smith. [GN]
TIMBERWORKS CONSTRUCTION: Iribe Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Timberworks
Construction, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jesus Iribe, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Timberworks
Construction, Inc., Workforce Business Services CA, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company, Case No. 34-2021-00307335-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept. 2, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."
Timberworks Construction is the largest framing contractor in
Northern California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243
Phone: (310) 438-5555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ruling Lays Foundation for Common Issues Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tamara Ticoll, Alexandra Urbanski, and Michael Ng at stikeman.com
report that in Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice certified a class action lawsuit brought
by Uber drivers who claim they have been misclassified as
independent contractors and denied employment benefits.
Background
In 2017, the representative plaintiffs, an UberEats driver and an
Uber driver (the "Plaintiffs"), commenced a proposed class action
in Ontario against Uber Technologies Inc. and related entities
(together, "Uber") on behalf of persons who have entered into
Service Agreements with Uber to use software applications ("Uber
Apps") developed and operated by Uber to provide transportation and
food delivery services (the "Class Members").
The Service Agreements label the Uber drivers or delivery people as
"independent contractors". This legal categorization was disputed
by the Plaintiffs, who alleged that they should be classified as
employees, and therefore, entitled to the benefits of Ontario's
Employment Standards Act, 2000 ("ESA") and other federal
employment-related legislation such as the Canada Pension Plan and
the Employment Insurance Act.
Uber initially asserted that the Plaintiffs' class action was
precluded by an arbitration clause in its Services Agreements that
required all disputes to be resolved through arbitration in the
Netherlands. As we noted in 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled
that the mandatory arbitration clause in Uber's service agreement
was unconscionable, and therefore invalid, with the consequence
that the proposed class action could proceed to court.
Following the Supreme Court's ruling, the Plaintiffs moved to
certify the proceeding as a class action.
Overview of the parties' positions
The Plaintiffs submitted that Uber had misclassified the proposed
Class Members as independent contractors rather than employees, and
that there was some basis in fact for the commonality of all the
proposed common issues that would determine and classify the
employment relationship. For instance, they all used the Uber App,
were bound by the standard form service agreements, and shared
rules of contract performance imposed on them by Uber.
In their Statement of Claim, the Plaintiffs advanced four causes of
action: (i) breach of the ESA; (ii) breach of contract; (iii)
negligence; and (iv) unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs claimed that
their proposed class action is similar to other employment status
misclassification cases that have been certified and that it too
should be certified.
Uber, on the other hand, argued that the Class Members were
independent contractors as this was a status expressly attributed
to them in the Service Agreements. Uber also argued that the Class
Members made the choice to provide services to riders using the
Uber App, with Uber's role being to develop, license, and market
the app, as well as to facilitate payment for services (among other
things). Uber claimed that the matter of employee or independent
contractor status could not be determined at a common issues trial
because, regardless of the common Uber Apps, common Service
Agreement, and common rules and regulations, employment status is
ultimately an idiosyncratic analysis that varies from driver to
driver.
The Certification Decision
The Court certified the class proceeding, finding that the five
criteria set out in section 5 of Ontario's Class Proceedings Act,
1992 (the "CPA") were met, namely that:
the pleadings disclose a cause of action; there is an identifiable
class of two or more persons; the claims of the class members raise
common issues; a class proceeding would be the preferable procedure
for the resolution of the common issues; and there is a
representative plaintiff who would fairly and adequately represent
the interests of the class in accordance with a workable plan and
who does not have a conflict of interest with other class members
on the common issues to be raised.
Cause of action
While the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs satisfied the cause
of action criterion for breach of the ESA and breach of contract,
the Court agreed with Uber that the Plaintiffs did not satisfy the
cause of action criteria or the preferable procedure criteria for
their claims of unjust enrichment and negligence.
The Court held that the Plaintiffs' claims for ESA entitlements and
other unpaid statutory payment and out-of-pocket expenses were all
breach of contract claims, and that the equitable relief of unjust
enrichment was not available where the plaintiff possesses a right
to contractual relief. Relying on the Supreme Court in Atlantic
Lottery v. Babstock, the Court held that disgorgement is generally
not available for breach of contract and is only available in
extraordinary circumstances, which did not exist in this case.
With respect to the negligence claim, the Court held that the
putative Class Members' pure economic loss claims did not fall
within any of the recognized categories where recovery for pure
economic loss is permitted in negligence and that the claims were
more than adequately addressed by the ESA and the alleged contracts
of employment. The Court further held that this was not an occasion
for concurrent liability in contract and tort. Moreover, the Court
held that any claim in negligence would be redundant and cumbersome
and would not satisfy the preferable procedure criterion.
Identifiable class
The Court held that the Plaintiffs satisfied the identifiable class
criterion, but that the class definition needed a modest revision.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs' proposed class definition referred to
"any person who, since January 1, 2012, worked or continues to work
. . . . pursuant to a Service Agreement". Finding that this
definition obscured the key issue in the case as to whether the
Class Members, all of whom are Uber App users, are "working for"
Uber, the Court revised the definition to identify the putative
Class Members simply as any person who "used" the Uber App to
transport passengers and/or to provide delivery services.
Common issues
The commonality or idiosyncrasy of the proposed common issues
questions was a "major factual and legal battleground" of the
proposed class action.
After reviewing the extensive evidentiary record, the Court held
(notwithstanding Uber's arguments to the contrary) that there was
some basis in fact for a number of proposed common issues,
including whether the Uber App users were employees or independent
contractors, and the Class Members' related breach of contract and
statutory claims. Moreover, the Court held that all proposed Class
Members had in common that they invariably used Uber Apps and were
bound by the Service Agreements. In light of the foregoing, the
Court held that there were sufficient common issues to bind all
Class Members. The ultimate determination of whether an employment
relationship exists will be decided by a common issues trial judge
at a later date (pending the outcome of any appeals, to the extent
made).
Significantly, the Court held that, in this case, the question of
aggregate damages was not certifiable as a common issue. The CPA
provides that a court can determine damages on an aggregate (i.e.
class-wide basis) when "no questions of fact or law other than
those relating to the assessment of monetary relief remain to be
determined in order to establish the amount of the defendant's
monetary liability" and "the aggregate of the defendant's liability
can reasonably be determined without proof by individual class
members". In this case, however, the Court held that individual
questions of fact relating to the determination of each Class
Member's damages remained to be determined on an individual basis,
with Class Members required to provide proof in support of their
damages claims at individual issues trials.
In the event that the Class Members are successful in proving they
are Uber employees at the common issues trial, individual issues
trials will follow to determine the Class Members' individual
damages. While the number of individual issues trials in this
circumstance could be quite large (there are 366,259 Class
Members), the Court noted in its decision that the take up of
individual claims may be small due to Class Member attrition
(individuals may decide that they do not have provable claims or
that they would not benefit from a "employee" finding).
Preferable procedure
The Court held that the Plaintiffs satisfied the preferable
procedure criterion and rejected Uber's arguments that the
individual issues in this case stemming from employment
classification and limitations issues will overwhelm the common
issues and make the class action unmanageable.
The Court held that there are viable common issues and a class
action would be a meaningful route to access to justice for both
parties. According to the Court, the proceeding would be
manageable, and a common issues trial would provide "considerable
momentum for individual issues trials". The Court noted that
waiting for legislative reform would be of no use to Class members
who have present day claims and that the court could eventually
rely on section 25 of the CPA to develop protocols for the
resolution of the individual issues trials.
The fifth certification test requirement (an adequate
representative plaintiff with a workable litigation plan) was not
contested.
Key Take-aways
Businesses in which independent contractors form part of the
workplace fabric will want to keep an eye on this case, which - as
a result of this ruling - could now proceed to a common issues
trial. There is of course the possibility of an appeal of the
certification order, and it will be interesting to see if that is
pursued and what the result is. In any event, it should be
remembered that this decision is not a decision on the merits:
there is still a long way to go before any determination will be
made as to the classification of Uber drivers as independent
contractors or employees.
DISCLAIMER: This publication is intended to convey general
information about legal issues and developments as of the indicated
date. It does not constitute legal advice and must not be treated
or relied on as such. Please read our full disclaimer at
www.stikeman.com/legal-notice. [GN]
UNITED INDUSTRIES: Deadline to File Settlement Set Sept. 20
-----------------------------------------------------------
Consumers who purchased certain citronella candles and pest foggers
may be eligible for a payment of up to $14 without proof of
purchase as part of a $3.6 million settlement.
Anyone living in the United States who purchased any of the covered
products for personal use between May 4, 2015, and June 7, 2021, is
eligible to file a claim.
The plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit against United
Industries Corp., maker of Cutter, Repel, Black Flag, and other
bands, alleging they marketed the products using misleading claims
about the products' efficacy.
Class Members who can submit proof of purchase will be eligible for
a full refund of their purchase price for up to six units. Those
without proof may claim $7 for up to two units, for a maximum total
of $14. Final amounts may be adjusted depending on the number of
claims filed.
The deadline to file a claim in this settlement is Sept. 20, 2021.
[GN]
VIEW INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 17 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that the View class
action lawsuit charges View, Inc. f/k/a CF Finance Acquisition
Corp. II and certain of its top executives with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The View class action lawsuit
seeks to represent purchasers of View securities between November
30, 2020 and August 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
View class action lawsuit was commenced on August 18, 2021 in the
Northern District of California and is captioned Mehedi v. View,
Inc. f/k/a CF Finance Acquisition Corp. II, No. 21-cv-06374.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the View class action
lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can
also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling
800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff
motions for the View class action lawsuit must be filed with the
court no later than October 17, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: CF Finance Acquisition Corp. II was a special
purpose acquisition company ("SPAC" or "blank check company")
formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock
exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization, or
similar business combination with one or more businesses. On March
8, 2021, CF Finance Acquisition Corp. II and View combined via a
business combination with View as the surviving, public entity.
The View class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) View had not properly accrued warranty costs
related to its product; (ii) there was a material weakness in
View's internal controls over accounting and financial reporting
related to warranty accrual; (iii) as a result, View's financial
results for prior periods were misstated; and (iv) consequently,
defendants' positive statements about View's business, operations,
and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
On August 16, 2021, View announced that it "began an independent
investigation concerning the adequacy of the company's previously
disclosed warranty accrual." On this news, View's share price fell
more than 24%, damaging investors.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP has launched a dedicated SPAC Task
Force to protect investors in blank check companies and seek
redress for corporate malfeasance. Comprised of experienced
litigators, investigators, and forensic accountants, the SPAC Task
Force is dedicated to rooting out and prosecuting fraud on behalf
of injured SPAC investors. The rise in blank check financing poses
unique risks to investors. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP's SPAC
Task Force represents the vanguard of ensuring integrity, honesty,
and justice in this rapidly developing investment arena.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased View
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the View class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is
generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the View class action lawsuit.
The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate
the View class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in
any potential future recovery of the View action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
About Robbins Geller
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in
securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained
many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including
the largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion -
in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for
recovering $1.6 billion for investors last year, more than double
the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs' firm.
Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. [GN]
VIEW INC: Thornton Law Reminds of October 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors who purchased View, Inc.
securities (NASDAQ:VIEW) between November 30, 2020 and August 16,
2021 may seek to participate in the case as a Lead Plaintiff.
Interested investors may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor
protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/View for more
information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call
617-531-3917. A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of
investors of VIEW. Investors do not need to be the Lead Plaintiff
to recover as class members if the case is successful.
The case alleges that View and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (i)
View had not properly accrued warranty costs related to its
product; (ii) there was a material weakness in View's internal
controls over accounting and financial reporting related to
warranty accrual; and (iii) as a result, View's financial results
for prior periods were misstated.
Interested View investors have until October 18, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class
members in managing the class action. Investors do not need to be a
lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. If investors choose
to take no action, they can remain an absent class member. The
class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law Firm is
not currently representing a plaintiff who filed a complaint but is
investigating the case on behalf of investors interested in being a
lead plaintiff.
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. [GN]
VIEWRAY INC: PCRA's 2nd Amended Complaint Dismissed With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. VIEWRAY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-2115 (N.D. Ohio), Judge J. Philip Calabrese of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint and dismisses the second amended complaint with
prejudice.
Defendant ViewRay is a small medical device company that
manufactures MRI-guided radiation systems used to locate, target,
and treat cancer. This product represents an upgrade over an
earlier first-generation product and uses a more advanced linear
accelerator, which irradiates cancer cells with less collateral
damage. Various overseas regulatory authorities approved the
MRIdian device between 2016 and 2018, and the Food and Drug
Administration approved it for use in the United States in February
2017. Nearly all of ViewRay's revenue relates to the sale of
MRIdian systems.
In July 2015, ViewRay went public through a reverse merger and
private placement and trades on the NASDAQ under the symbol "VRAY."
Since going public, ViewRay sought to raise capital on several
different occasions through various private, semi-private, and
public offerings of common stock. In July, November, and December
2019, Plymouth purchased ViewRay common stock on the open market at
prices ranging from $9.46 per share (on July 19, 2019) to $3.13 (on
Dec. 4, 2019).
The second amended complaint names the following ViewRay officers
and directors as Defendants:
a. Since June 24, 2018, Scott Drake has served as ViewRay's
President and CEO and holds a seat on its board of directors.
b. From June 8, 2016, until his departure from the company on
Sept. 30, 2019, Ajay Bansal was ViewRay's CFO.
c. James Dempsey founded ViewRay and serves as the company's
Chief Scientific Officer; he also sits on its board.
d. Since June 24, 2018, Shahriar Matin has been ViewRay's
COO.
e. From Feb. 4, 2013, until July 22, 2018, Chris Raanes
served as ViewRay's President and CEO and as a member of the
board.
Plaintiff Plymouth County Retirement Association purchased ViewRay
common stock on the NASDAQ stock exchange. On Jan. 13, 2020,
ViewRay released 4Q19 and FY19 results, disclosing that it had
generated less than $17 million in revenue and received only four
new orders. ViewRay's stock declined roughly 23%, closing at $2.85
per share.
After ViewRay's stock price dropped in late 2019, the Plaintiff
sued ViewRay and various current and former executives for
securities fraud. Plymouth allegedly suffered losses as the share
price fell throughout 2019. It alleges that ViewRay (and its
officers and directors named as Defendants) committed securities
fraud by telling investors one thing about its backlog -- the key
metric underpinning the company's valuation in the absence of
revenues and profits -- while internally having knowledge or taking
actions regarding backlogged orders inconsistent with those public
statements. It bases its claims on alleged material
misrepresentations or omissions in several statements in various
10-Qs, 10-Ks, 8-Ks, press releases, presentations, and on earnings
calls.
As the Lead Plaintiff, Plymouth alleges the Defendants violated
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act (Count 1) and that
the officers and directors, as controlling persons of the company,
each violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act (Count 2). It seeks
compensatory damages.
The Plaintiff brings the case under Rule 23, on behalf of a
putative class of "all persons and entities that purchased, or
otherwise acquired, ViewRay securities." It defines the class
period as running from May 10, 2018 to Jan. 13, 2020.
The Defendants move to dismiss the second amended complaint.
Analysis
The Defendants argue the Plaintiff fails to state a claim under
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 because the second amended complaint
does not (1) allege materially false or misleading statements or
omissions, (2) allege facts that give rise to a strong inference of
scienter, or (3) plead loss causation. As for the Section 20(a)
claims against each of the individual officers and directors,
Defendants maintain those claims rise and fall with the other.
Accordingly, the Defendants seek dismissal of the second amended
complaint in its entirety. The Plaintiff counters that it has
adequately pled actionable misrepresentations and omissions, as
well as facts that give rise to a strong inference of scienter on
the part of each Defendant.
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 makes it
unlawful for anyone to "use or employ, in connection with the
purchase or sale of any security any manipulative or deceptive
device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and
regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or
appropriate in the public interest for the protection of
investors." To enforce this statute, the SEC promulgated Rule
10b-5, which makes it "unlawful to, among other things, make any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances in which they were made, not misleading."
In addition, to plead a violation of Section 20(a) for control
person liability, a plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating that
"the defendant 'controlled' another person who committed an
underlying violation of the Act, and that the defendant 'culpably
participated' in that underlying violation." To maintain a Section
20(a) claim, then, a plaintiff must allege a primary violation of
the Exchange Act.
The Plaintiff identifies some 40 statements it maintains were
material and false or that omitted material information the
Defendants were required to disclose. Generally, the alleged
misrepresentations and omissions the Plaintiff maintains are
actionable fall into three categories: (1) statements about the
backlog and the criteria for orders included in it, (2) statements
about the backlog's value, and (3) ViewRay's 2019 revenue
guidance.
Judge Calabrese determines the alleged misstatements and omissions
on which the Plaintiff relies are not actionable, even assuming
their materiality. Additionally, taking the Plaintiff's allegations
holistically, he determines that the second amended complaint fails
to give rise to a strong inference of scienter that is cogent and
at least as compelling as any opposing inference. In the end, the
Plaintiff attempts to turn a company's disappointing financial
performance and stock drop into class action securities litigation
of the sort the Reform Act attempts to curb.
Accordingly, Judge Calabrese grants the Defendants' motion and
dismisses the second amended complaint with prejudice. The Judge
directs the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 25, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4k4ykh4s from Leagle.com.
W.R. GRACE: Misleads Stockholders to Approve Merger, Wilson Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. W. R. GRACE & CO., HUDSON LA FORCE, MARK E.
TOMKINS, ROBERT F. CUMMINGS, JR., DIANE H. GULYAS, HENRY R. SLACK,
JULIE FASONE HOLDER, CHRISTOPHER J. STEFFEN, and SHLOMO YANAI,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01264-UNA (D. Del., September 2, 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 filed a materially
deficient and misleading Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to convince
W. R. Grace & Co.'s stockholders to vote in favor of the proposed
acquisition of the company by Standard Industries Holdings Inc.
through Gibraltar Acquisition Holdings LLC and Gibraltar Merger Sub
Inc. The Proxy Statement allegedly fails to disclose material
information regarding: (i) W. R. Grace & Co.'s financial
projections and the financial analyses performed by the company's
financial advisors, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and Moelis & Company
LLC; and (ii) Goldman's potential conflicts of interest. The
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from conducting the
stockholder vote on the proposed transaction unless and until the
material information is disclosed to the holders of the company's
common stock.
W. R. Grace & Co. is an American chemicals company, with its
principal executive offices located at 7500 Grace Drive, Columbia,
Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
LONG LAW, LLC
3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 208
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 729-9100
E-mail: BDLong@longlawde.com
- and –
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 860-9158
Facsimile: (212) 214-0506
E-mail: raymond@bespc.com
WALMART INC: Corbett Files Suit in W.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walmart Inc. The case
is styled as Jennifer Houseman Corbett, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Walmart Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-00996 (W.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Walmart Inc. -- https://corporate.walmart.com/ -- is an American
multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from
the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Road, Ste. 409
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 260-7080
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
WALMART INC: USERRA Class Action Filing Deadline Set Sept. 16
-------------------------------------------------------------
Walmart employees who took short-term military leave may be
eligible to participate in a $14 million class action settlement.
The Class includes all current and former employees who work or
worked for Walmart at a location in a jurisdiction covered by the
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
— i.e., the United States and its territories — between Oct.
10, 2004, and Dec. 31, 2020, who took short-term military leave of
30 days or less in one or more years while they were employed with
the company during that period, and who, during such leave, did not
receive the regular wages or salary they would have earned had they
continued to work their normal work schedules.
The plaintiff's class action alleged Walmart violated USERRA by
failing to provide fully paid leave for such employees.
Each Class Member submitting a valid claim form will receive a
proportionate share of the settlement fund based on the amount of
short-term military leave they took during a calendar year in which
they worked at Walmart, compared to the amount identified on all
Class Members' claim forms.
The deadline to file a claim is Sept. 16, 2021. [GN]
WASHINGTON POST: Deadline of Subscription Class Claims Set Sept. 19
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If you live in California and your subscription to The Washington
Post (WaPo) renewed automatically, you may be able to claim part of
a $6.8 million settlement.
The Class includes anyone who, from July 29, 2016, to and through
April 1, 2021, enrolled in a digital WaPo subscription using a
California billing address and who, during that same period, was
charged and paid at least one automatic renewal fee in connection
with the subscription.
The Washington Post was alleged to have violated California law by
automatically renewing subscriptions and charging subscribers
without providing the required disclosures or obtaining proper
authorization.
Class Members will receive varying awards -- depending on their
subscription status and whether they file a claim -- such as
credits of $10 to $20 for free weeks of access or a cash payment.
Claims are due by Sept. 19, 2021. [GN]
WESTSIDE DIALYSIS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bell Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
LINDSEY BELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WESTSIDE DIALYSIS UNIT LLC, Case No.
4:21-cv-748-BRW (E.D. Ark., Aug. 24, 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 Bell was employed by the Defendant as dialysis
technician.
WESTSIDE DIALYSIS UNIT LLC is a Medicare certified dialysis
facility. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris Burks, Esq.
WH LAW | WE HELP
1 Riverfront Pl. Suite 745
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Telephone: (501) 891-6000
*********
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 ***