/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210921.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, September 21, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 183
Headlines
360 DIGITECH: Gross Law Firm Announces Shareholder Class Action
ACT INC: Bais Yaakov Can't Pursue TCPA Class Action, Court Rules
AIRCRAFT SERVICE: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California
ALABAMA: Hurst Loses Class Certification Bid
ALLEN, TX: Parents File Class Action v. ISD Over COVID-19 Measures
ALLSTATE CORP: Settlement Agreement Reached in Insurance Class Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Action Alleges Alexa Violates Illinois' BIPA
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Chaves Suit Over Unlawful Sales Tax Charges
AMERICAN CAMPUS: Certification of Class in Berry Upheld as Modified
AMERICSOURCEBERGEN: Board Accepts Opioid Suit Against Pharma Cos.
ANNOVIS BIO: Schall Law Firm Reminds of October 18 Deadline
ANTHONY VINEYARDS: Plaintiffs Must File Bid to Amend by Sept. 24
APPLE INC: Class Action Mulled Over Cracked M1 MacBook Screens
APPLE INC: Class Action Over Siri Voice Assistant Can Proceed
APPLE INC: Faces Suit Over App That Led to Cryptocurrency Theft
APPLE INC: Judge Ordered to Implement App Store Payment Changes
ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Banuelos Suit Removed to C.D. California
ATLANTA ALLERGY: Alleged Data Breach Class Action Pending
AUTOLOTTO INC: Burstein Sues Over Fraudulent Investment Scheme
BANKERS LIFE: Misclassifies Sales Representatives, Emory Claims
BANNER BANK: Bid for Summary Judgment Partly Granted in Bolding
BAUSCH HEALTH: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $300 Million
BERLIN SKIN: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BOB DEAN: Nursing Home Residents File Class Action Lawsuit
BOSTON BEER: Robbins Geller Reminds of November 15 Deadline
BOSTON BEER: Thornton Law Reminds of November 15 Deadline
BOUGHTMILK.COM: Settlement Reached in Price Fixing Class Action
BRAD LITTLE: Veenstra Files Suit in D. Idaho
BRECKENRIDGE GRAND: FLSA Collective Action Gets Conditional Status
BUTTERBALL LLC: Federal Judge Tossed Poultry Workers' Labor Suit
C PEPPER: Deadline for Class Cert Bid Filling Set for May 3, 2022
CANADA: Faces Equitas Society Suit Over Unfair Pension Reforms
CHICAGO, IL: Stop-and-Frisk Lawsuit Granted Class Action Status
CLARK HILL: Matthew Marshall Secures Summary Judgment in Suit
CLEAR CUT: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Nisbett Alleges
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $95MM
COLLECTABLE SPORTS: Blind Can't Access Website, Fischler Alleges
COLORADO: Faces Medicaid Child Mental Health Care Class Action
CORVIAS GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in Page Class Suit
CRST INT'L: Markson Suit Seeks to Certify Class and Subclass
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Tarrify Appeals Class Certification Bid Denial
DIDI GLOBAL: Faces Hechler Suit Over Drop in Share Price
DISCOUNT POWER: Abramson Files TCPA Suit in D. Connecticut
EAST COAST MOVING: Faces Douglas Suit Over Laborers' Unpaid Wages
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Snyder Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters
FABFITFUN INC: Settles Suit for $625K for Alleged Security Failures
FARMERS GROUP: Faces Stallone Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
FCA US: Bledsoe Seeks Certification of Class Action
FIAT CHRYSLER: Class Action Over Dodge Hood Scoop Tossed
FILLMORE AND 5TH: Downing Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
FIVE9 INC: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Lawrence Suit Alleges
FRUIT FUSION: State Automobile Files Suit in S.D. Illinois
GENERAC POWER: Zimmer Files Suit in E.D. Louisiana
GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Diaz Must File Class Cert Bid by Jan. 27, 2022
GHRAY AREA: Faces Devivo Suit Over Illegal Sales Calls
GOHEALTH LLC: Shortchanges Workers' Overtime Pay, Jordan Says
GOLD COAST: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOOD SAMARITAN: Wins Summary Judgment in Frank Malpractice Suit
GOOGLE LLC: Ill. Federal Court Affirms Biometric Class Action Stay
GOOGLE LLC: Seeks Dismissal of Fraud Claims in Privacy Class Suit
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Barasch Trust Putative Class Suit Underway
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Consolidated Class Suit Underway in New York
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Continues to Defend Kinnie Ma Class Suit
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Deluca and Drew Putative Class Suit Underway
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Ortiz Class Action Ongoing in New York
GRAND GIFTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jimenez Suit Alleges
GRUBHUB INC: Illinois District Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Suit
HAIN CELESTIAL: Sept. 27 Oral Argument on Appeal of Suit Dismissal
HAIN CELESTIAL: Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation Stayed
HALIFAX INVESTMENT: Dec. 10 Deadline Set to Sign Up Class Members
HEALTHEXTRAS INC: Court Tosses Insurance Class Suit for 2nd Time
HILL ENTERPRISE: Faces Espinal Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.Y.
HOME DEPOT: Faces Carson Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
HOME DEPOT: Hearing for Class Cert. Bid Continued to Feb. 17, 2022
HOMEADVISOR INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due May 5, 2022
HONEST COMPANY: Kirby McInerney Reminds of November 15 Deadline
HONEST COMPANY: Robbins Geller Reminds of Nov. 15 Deadline
HP INC: Investors Strike Out in Proposed Suit Over Printing Unit
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Battery Systems
J-M MANUFACTURING: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 1
JACOBS & CUSHMAN: Food Bank Leader Leaves Amid Class Action
JIM'S TOWING: Campbell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Pedron Sues Over Defective Sunscreen Products
JORGE HADDOCK: Must Respond to Class Cert. Bid by Sept. 28
KAMAYA ELECTRIC: Settlement Hearings in Linear Resistors Suit Set
KEESLER FEDERAL: Court Amends Case Management Schedule in Lloyd
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Dansky Sues Over Defective CPAP Devices
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Scheibel Files Suit in D. Kansas
KROGER CO: Ct. Amends June 18, 2021 Scheduling Order in Solano
LANNETT CO: Class Certification Bid in Pennsylvania Suit Granted
LANNETT CO: Court Junks Contaminated Ranitidine Related Suit
LANNETT COMPANY: Utesch Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
LASALLE CORRECTIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Stanfield Alleges
LEND LEASE: Court Narrows Claims in Burn Class Suit
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Hill Bid to Certify Class Moot
LIVE VENTURES: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action
LIVE VENTURES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 12 Deadline
LOANDEPOT INC: Federman & Sherwood Reminds of November 5 Deadline
LOANDEPOT INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of November 8 Deadline
LOANDEPOT INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of November 8 Deadline
MASSACHUSETTS DOR: Green Suit Removed to D. Mass.
MATRIX ABSENCE: Settlement Talks in "Weeks" Extended to 30 Days
METROPOLITAN TOWER: Pitt Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 1
MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Faces Public Housing Discrimination Class Action
MONRO INC: Kiaunis Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages & 401(k) Plans
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Head Injury Risk Class Action Pending
NATIONAL WATERPROOFING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Harris Alleges
NCAA: Former Notre Dame Footballer Sues Over Head Injuries
NCAA: Judge Allows HBCU Class-Action Lawsuit to Move Forward
NEW ORLEANS, LA: November 2 Hearing in Landfill Class Action
NEW YORK TIMES: Court Hears Renewal Fraud Class Action Settlement
NEW YORK, NY: Averts Class Action Over Foster Care System
NEW YORK, NY: Court Denies Elisa W.'s Bid for Class Certification
NORTH COAST: Bryant Bid for Conditional Certification Partly OK'd
NORTHAMPTON RESTAURANTS: FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Worker Class
NT STOLEN: Class Action to Continue Despite Redress Scheme
NVIDIA CORPORATION: Tobias Complaint Dismissed w/o Prejudice
NVR INC: Hughes Seeks Loan Processors' Unpaid Overtime Wages
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Deselms Suit Seeks to Certify Class
OMNICARE INC: Settlement Deal in Davis Suit Gets Final Nod
OREGON MUTUAL: Dakota Ventures Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
OWN USA: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PARADIES SHOPS: Data Breach Caused Huge Damages, Lawsuit Alleges
PFIZER INC: Nov. 1 EpiPen Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set
PIPES & SHAW: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
POLARIS INC: Averts Class Action Over Vehicles' Design Defect
PRIME COAST: Thompson Sues Over Vending Machines' Hidden Fees
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Reconsideration of Class Cert. Bid Sought
SAFECO INSURANCE: 7th Cir. Adopts Objective Reasonableness Standard
SAUDI ARABIA: Class Action Over 9/11 Terrorist Attacks Pending
SCIPLAY CORP: November 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SELECTQUOTE INC: Faces Hartel Putative Securities Class Suit
SESEN BIO: Hagens Berman Reminds of October 18 Deadline
SESEN BIO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 18 Deadline
SLINGSHOT TECHNOLOGIES: Gardner Sues Over CSRs' Unpaid Wages
SONIC CORP: Judge Denies Bid for Early Judgment in Data Breach Suit
SPECTRUM PHARMA: Glancy Prongay Reminds of November 1 Deadline
SPECTRUM PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Novemeber 1 Deadline
ST. LOUIS, MO: Filing of Class Status Response Extended
STATE FARM: Baker Seeks Reconsideration of Class Status Denial
STUDENT LOAN: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Robocalls
STURDY MEMORIAL: Faces Class Action Over Ransomware Attack
SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Dec. 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
T-MOBILE US: Asks the Court to Consolidate Data Breach Class Suits
T-MOBILE USA: Faces Gonzalez Suit Over Alleged Data Info Breach
TENNESSEE: 3rd Family Joins Class Action Over Mask Opt-Out Order
TENNESSEE: Judge Hears Governor's Mask Opt-Out Order in Schools
THERANOS INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Certif. in Fraud Lawsuit
TIVITY HEALTH: Securities Class Action Pending in Tennessee
TOTAL LIFE: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Extended to Oct. 11
TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Class Claims in WM Bang Suit Dismissed
TRUE PERFORMANCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Neighbors Suit Says
TRULIEVE INC: Settles Hiring Class Action for Undisclosed Amount
TTE TECHNOLOGY: Joint Stipulated Class Status Briefing OK'd
TUTTO IL GIORNO: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Zhiminaicela Suit Claims
TWIN CITY FIRE: Cosmetic Laser Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
TYSON FOODS: Settles Broiler Chicken Antitrust Class Action Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: WeirFoulds Attorney Disccuses Class Cert. Ruling
UNIQUE FREIGHT: Villamar Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
UNITED KINGDOM: Class Action Mulled Over Quarantine Hotel Policy
UNITED STATES: Black Civil Servants Vow to Press on With Suit
UNITED STATES: Johnson Seeks to Certify Class of Air Force Veterans
UNITED STATES: Mossman Seeks to Certify Class of Landlords
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Davis FCRA Suit
UPS SUPPLY: Dismissal of Hughes' Unpaid Wages Class Claim Affirmed
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Lutz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VITA LOCATORS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Price Suit
WATERDROP INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of November 15 Deadline
WATERDROP INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of Nov. 15 Deadline
WE MAKE DOUGH: Garcia Seeks Unpaid OT Wages & Spread of Hours Pay
WILLAMETTE VALLEY: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in "Kelley"
WISCONSIN: Faces Class Suit Over Disability Unemployment Benefits
YOSEIRY GROCERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Perez Suit Alleges
[*] Kutak Rock Attorneys Discuss Dismissed Bank Fee Class Action
*********
360 DIGITECH: Gross Law Firm Announces Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.
360 DigiTech, Inc. (NASDAQ:QFIN)
Investors Affected: April 29, 2021 - July 7, 2021
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
360 DigiTech, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company had been collecting personal
information in violation of relevant People's Republic of China
laws and regulations; (ii) accordingly, 360 DigiTech was exposed to
an increased risk of regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement action;
and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/360-digitech-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=19513&from=1
Oatly Group AB (NASDAQ:OTLY)
Investors Affected: May 20, 2021 - July 15, 2021
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Oatly Group AB. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (a) Oatly overinflated its gross margins, revenue,
capital expenditure, and market share financial metrics; (b) the
Company overstated its sustainability practices and impact; (c) the
Company exaggerated its growth in China; and (c) as a result of the
foregoing, Oatly's statements about its operations, business, and
prospects were misleading during the Class Period.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/oatly-group-ab-loss-submission-form/?id=19513&from=1
Cassava Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ:SAVA)
Investors Affected: February 2, 2021 - August 24, 2021
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Cassava Sciences, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (a) the quality and integrity of the scientific data
supporting Cassava's claims for simufilam's, a small molecule drug
designed to treat Alzheimer's disease, efficacy had been
overstated; (b) the scientific data supporting Cassava's claims for
simufilam's efficacy were biased; and (c) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements during the Class Period
about the Company's business metrics and financial prospects and
the likelihood of Food and Drug Administration approval were false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/cassava-sciences-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=19513&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
ACT INC: Bais Yaakov Can't Pursue TCPA Class Action, Court Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara J. Triplett, writing for TCPA World, reports that that's right
- Bais Yaakov is back, baby! And it's brought gifts.
You might recall Bais Yaakov - the private high school we've
previously blogged about on more than a few occasions. Well, the
First Circuit refused to allow Bais Yaakov to pursue a TCPA class
action based on claims that it received three unsolicited fax
advertisements from college testing provider ACT, Inc. The Court
also rejected Bais Yaakov's argument that the district court had
erred in finding the "Solicited Fax Rule" to be invalid. See Bais
Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Act, Inc., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 26135
(1st Cir. Aug. 30, 2021).
To recap, Bais Yaakov is a small private high school that -- once
upon a time in 2005 -- filled out a request form indicating that it
wanted to administer standardized tests, such as the ACT. In 2012,
ACT sent three one-page faxes to the school. And, hoo boy! Little
could ACT have known that these three faxes would cause Bais Yaakov
to wage a decades-long vendetta against it. Even the First Circuit
was awed by the school's tenacity, beginning its decision with this
zinger:
Bais Yaakov has since [receiving three one-page faxes in 2012]
pursued ACT with a zeal that would impress even Hugo's Inspector
Javert.
But, I digress. Back to the law.
This most recent decision in the Bais Yaakov saga is, suffice it to
say, DENSE. Still, there are two important takeaways -- or, gifts
as a defense lawyer might say -- that the Court delivered.
First, in a unanimous ruling, the Court affirmed the district
court's denial of Baas Yaakov's motion to certify two classes --
allegedly consisting of thousands of schools that received
unsolicited faxes from ACT. Class A sought to include only
recipients of unsolicited fax advertisements from ACT that had no
opt-out notice. Class B was broader, including recipients of any
(even solicited) fax advertisements from ACT that did not contain
an opt-out notice.
The Court rejected both classes because they failed a predominance
inquiry. In other words, the Court found that the district court
"reasonably determined that individual issues of permission would
predominate over common questions for both Class A and Class B."
Even better, the Court denied certification as to Bais Yaakov's
Class A because it found the proposed class would constitute a
"fail-safe class," that is, a class that would bind members only if
they prevailed on an ultimate merits issue to become a member of
that class. You see, in order to determine if a fax had been truly
"solicited," a court would have to entertain countless mini-trials.
And this can't happen in a class action.
Whether or not a fail-safe class can survive a predominance inquiry
-- and thus be certified -- is a tricky one that has caused a split
among circuit courts. The fact that the First Circuit took a stand
here is certainly significant, as the Court itself was aware:
It is safe to assume that our "predominance" holding in this case
will not go unnoticed.
The second big takeaway from this case is that the Court ruled that
the Solicited Fax Rule is DEAD. The Court agreed with the D.C.
Circuit's decision in 2017, finding that the FCC had no authority
under the TCPA to regulate faxes that were sent with the
recipient's consent. And, although the Court was not bound by the
D.C. Circuit Court's decision, it nonetheless found that it made
"good sense."
You might remember that we in TCPAWorld previously celebrated
Solicited Fax Freedom Day:
All of which leads us to today - Solicited Fax Freedom Day in
TCPAWorld. (It's sort of like Bastille Day, but with fewer
beheadings.) For today is the day that the FCC's post Bais Yaakov
ruling finally takes effect and the Solicited Fax Rule is
officially withdrawn ending 13 years of (figurative) bloodshed in
federal courthouses over the content of solicited faxes.
So, there you have it. The First Circuit delivers us two "gifts"
with this most recent Bais Yaakov decision.
Happy Sunday all. [GN]
AIRCRAFT SERVICE: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Danny Lopez, individually, and on behalf of all
other aggrieved employees v. AIRCRAFT SERVICE INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
a corporation; AIR MENZIES INTERNATIONAL (USA), INC., a
corporation; MENZIES AVIATION (USA), INC., a corporation; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV26797 was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
Sept. 2, 2021, and assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-07108-AS.
The Complaint alleges a single cause of action under the California
Private Attorneys' General Act ("PAGA"), which is premised on the
following alleged violations of the California Labor Code: (1)
Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (2) Failure to Provide Rest
Periods; (3) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (4) Failure to Pay
Minimum Wages; (5) Failure to Permit Inspection of Records; (6)
Failure to Timely Pay Wages; (7) Failure to Pay All Wages Upon
Termination; (8) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage
Statements; and (9) Failure to Reimburse.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher Ward, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
555 South Flower Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2418
Phone: 213.972.4500
Facsimile: 213.486.0065
Email: cward@foley.com
- amd -
Kevin Jackson, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
11988 El Camino Real, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92130-2594
Phone: 858.847.6700
Facsimile: 858.792.6773
Email: kjackson@foley.com
ALABAMA: Hurst Loses Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM JAMES HURST v. STATE
OF ALABAMA, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00537-ECM-JTA (M.D. Ala.), the
Hon. Judge Emily C. Marks entered an order that:
-- the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted, and
the motion for class certification is denied.
-- the case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for
further proceedings.
On August 17, 2021, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation
to which no timely objections have been filed.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Cn3naH at no extra charge.[CC]
ALLEN, TX: Parents File Class Action v. ISD Over COVID-19 Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jobin Panicker, writing for WFAA, reports that Therissa Grefsrud
has two children, ages 7 and 6, and like most parents, she is
concerned for her school-age children in this pandemic. The single
mother from Allen is one of several hundred parents challenging
Allen Independent School District in court.
"Honestly, I feel like when I'm sending them [to school] we're
playing Russian roulette with their lives and other kid's lives,"
said Grefsrud.
Grefsrud is a registered nurse specializing in infection prevention
and epidemiology. She told WFAA that she had exhausted every other
avenue before taking the legal route.
The complaint was filed late on Sept. 8. It is a class action
lawsuit comprised of Allen parents to the Eastern District of
Texas, a federal court.
In the complaint, attorneys cite the 14th Amendment.
The complaint reads:
"The School Board has a duty to assure the right to life of the
DOES's and all students for that matter, is effectuated in School
Board Policies, Procedures and Directives but currently it is not.
In fact, it gives more import to the happiness of some students
over the life, health and welfare of many others."
Attorneys for the Allen parents supplied a letter from 200
physicians at Cooks Children Healthcare System expressing concern
over the delta variant.
"You can only do so much before you realize nobody is going to hear
you," said Grefsrud.
Allen ISD does not have a mask mandate. It also does not have
virtual learning options.
Grefsrud believes masks work and said the polarizing topic of masks
usually dominate the conversation, but she cited many other
measures that could be taken, like social distancing and classroom
spacing.
"There are very clear recommendations of what we should be doing to
keep our kids safe and communities safe. You have a room that is
plenty big and few enough kids to do that and they aren't doing
it," she said.
Allen ISD sent WFAA the following statement:
"Due to the ongoing litigation, the school district cannot speak to
the specifics regarding its response to the lawsuit at this time.
The district, however, strongly disagrees that the students'
constitutional rights have been violated by leaving masks as an
option for students and staff.
Allen ISD continues to work proactively and professionally with
parents who have questions or concerns about COVID-related issues.
The vast majority of these concerns have been resolved without the
need for litigation."
Grefsrud said she'd rather not go to court but feels she is out of
options. She feels what she and other parents are asking for are
common-sense and reasonable recommendations by CDC and other
medical entities.
"I vacillate between finding my patience and empathy and just
feeling very angry, because so much of it is preventable," she
said. [GN]
ALLSTATE CORP: Settlement Agreement Reached in Insurance Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a Texas law firm has reached an agreement with
Allstate to dismiss a proposed class action accusing the insurer of
routinely putting forth unqualified expert witnesses to delay
justice and drive up litigation costs. [GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Action Alleges Alexa Violates Illinois' BIPA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle at
chicagobusinesslitigationlawyerblog.com report that Amazon is
facing a class-action lawsuit filed in the Madison County Circuit
Court alleging that Amazon's Alexa violates the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA). In setting out its case against
Amazon, the Complaint quotes an interview with former Amazon senior
editor James Marcus in which he said that "It was made clear from
the beginning that data collection was also one of Amazon's
businesses. All customer behavior that flowed through the site was
recorded and tracked. And that itself was a valuable commodity."
The Complaint details the near ubiquity of Amazon's voice-based
virtual assistant Alexa by alleging that Alexa is embedded in
numerous Amazon devices such as Echo speakers, Fire tablets, and
others. The Complaint goes on to allege that Alexa can additionally
be integrated into other devices such as phones, TVs, thermostats,
appliances, lights, and many more consumer products.
The Complaint alleges that after Alexa responds to a request,
Amazon collects and subsequently stores "voiceprints" of the user,
and "transcriptions" of the voiceprints. These voiceprints and
transcriptions constitute biometric identifiers or biometric
information regulated by BIPA, according to the Complaint. The suit
goes on to allege that Amazon does not delete the voiceprint or
transcription after Alexa has responded. Instead, the Complaint
alleges, Amazon uses these recordings to collect biometric
information which it uses to improve the speech and voice
recognition capabilities of Alexa.
Although Alexa is supposed to activate only after hearing its "wake
word," the Complaint alleges that Alexa-enabled devices frequently
capture conversations by accident without being triggered. The
Complaint cites a study conducted by Ruhr-Universität Bochum and
the Bochum Max Planck Institute for Cyber Security and Privacy that
allegedly discovered more than 1,000 sequences of words that
incorrectly trigger smart speakers, such as Alexa. According to the
Complaint, the study found that Alexa was inadvertently activated
by the words "unacceptable" and "election."
Echoing the concerns that privacy advocates have voiced for many
years, the lawsuit purports to detail Amazon's extensive use of the
voiceprints captured by Alexa. Initially, the Complaint alleges,
"Amazon represented that the voiceprints were simply streamed to
the cloud and used only to allow Alexa to respond to the command
and help personalize Alexa's response to a user." According to the
Complaint, Amazon only later admitted "that it stores voiceprints,
the transcriptions made from the voiceprints, and other information
created from the voiceprints, including 'acoustic models' of the
speaker's voice characteristics, on multiple servers." Amazon
allegedly employs thousands of individuals worldwide who listen to
recordings made by Alexa and review transcriptions in order to
"eliminate gaps in Alexa's understanding of human speech and help
it better respond to commands."
The suit accuses Amazon of violating the BIPA by failing to notify
Illinois users that their voiceprints are collected, stored and
used and that their interactions are recorded. The plaintiff in the
suit, April Schaeffer, seeks to represent not only herself but a
class of "all Illinois residents who own an Alexa device located in
Illinois from which, during the class period, Amazon has taken
possession of the person's voiceprint and/or a voiceprint
transaction, acoustic model of voice characteristics, or other
information created from a voiceprint that is linked to the person;
and who have suffered no injury from Amazon's violations of BIPA
and/or other statutory aggrievement." The Complaint requests entry
of a permanent injunction enjoining Amazon from collecting,
obtaining, storing, using, selling, leasing, trading, profiting
from, disclosing or disseminating users' biometric identifiers and
information until it is done in compliance with BIPA. It also seeks
damages of $5,000 per willful violation of BIPA or $1,000 per
negligent violation and an award of attorneys' fees.
This is not the first time Alexa has gotten Amazon in hot water.
This lawsuit comes on the heels of another class-action suit
involving Alexa filed recently by four healthcare workers who
allege that their Amazon Alexa devices recorded conversations
involving health information without their consent and in violation
of HIPAA.
Super Lawyers named Wilmette and Elmhurst business litigation and
class-action litigation attorneys Peter Lubin and Patrick
Austermuehle a Super Lawyer and Rising Star respectively in the
Categories of Class Action, Consumer Rights Litigation, and
Business Litigation. Lubin Austermuehle's Oak Brook and Chicago
consumer rights litigation lawyers have over thirty-five years of
experience litigating complex class action and consumer protection
lawsuits. We handle consumer rights, auto fraud, complex class
action, breach of contract, franchise and dealer termination,
copyright, partnership, and shareholder oppression suits,
non-compete agreement, trademark and libel suits, and many
different types of business and commercial litigation disputes. In
every case, our goal is to resolve disputes as quickly and
successfully as possible, helping business clients protect their
investments and get back to business as usual. From offices near
Naperville and Wheaton, we serve clients throughout Illinois and
the country. To set up a consultation with one of our Chicago
class-action attorneys and Chicago business trial lawyers, please
call us toll-free at (833) 306-4933 or contact us online. [GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Chaves Suit Over Unlawful Sales Tax Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEBBIE CHAVES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-01213 (W.D. Wash., Sept. 7, 2021) is a class action for
breach of contract and consumer protection act violations arising
from Amazon's unlawful charge of a "sales tax" to United States
customers, including Plaintiff, on certain digital and gift card
goods, despite the tax-exempt status of such goods under the
Washington Consumer Protection Act.
The complaint alleges that Amazon willfully and knowingly
overcharged its subscribers a false and unlawful sales tax on their
purchases of digital and gift card items. Amazon falsely
represented that the tax charges imposed on purchases were
consistent with the laws of the relevant states of purchase, and
falsely represented that "[n]o tax is charged while purchasing gift
cards." Although Amazon claims to regularly review its billing and
collection practices for tax compliance purposes, Amazon engaged in
a uniform, years-long practice of charging a "sales tax" on
numerous purchases of digital items and gift cards from its
marketplace in jurisdictions that exempt taxation of those
products, says the complaint.
Amazon owns and operates Amazon.com, the world's largest online
marketplace.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wright A. Noel, Esq.
CARSON NOEL PLLC
20 Sixth Avenue NE
Issaquah, WA 98027
Telephone: (425) 837-4717
Facsimile: (425) 837-5396
E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com
- and -
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
- and -
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: mroberts@bursor.com
mgirardi@bursor.com
AMERICAN CAMPUS: Certification of Class in Berry Upheld as Modified
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, American Campus Communities, Inc.; American Campus
(PVAMU) Ltd.; American Campus (PVAMU IV) Ltd.; ACC OP (PVAMU VI),
LLC; ACC OP (PVAMU VII), LLC; ACC OP (PVAMU VIII), LLC; American
Campus (Laredo), Ltd.; American Campus (U of H), Ltd.; ACC OP (West
Abram), LLC; ACC OP (The Block), LLC; 22 1/2 Street Partners, L.P.;
Campus Investors Austin, LLC; Campus Investors Austin, LLC; ACC OP
(Pearl Street), LLC; ACC OP (Retreat Sm), LLC; ACC OP (Retreat Sm
Land), LLC; ACC OP (Sanctuary Lofts), LLC; ACC OP (Vistas San
Marcos), LLC; ACC (Outpost San Marcos), L.P.; Campus Investors
Hrse-SC, LLC; American Campus Communities Operating Partnership,
L.P.; ACC (Outpost San Antonio), L.P.; ACC OP (West Campus), LLC;
ACC OP (Uta Blvd.), LLC; ACC OP (26 West), LLC; GMH/GF Denton
Associates, LLC; ACC OP (Cityparc), L.P.; Apkshv Lubbock, L.P.; ACC
(Raiders Pass), L.P.; Lubbock Two Associates, LLC; Lubbock Main
Street Associates, LLC; ACC OP (Overton Park), LLC; ACC OP (Tract
6), LLC; Sycamore Avenue Associates, LLC; ACC OP (Tracts 32 and
33), LLC; ACC OP (Denton-Fry), LLC; SHP-The Callaway House, L.P.;
ACC OP (Callaway Villas), L.P.; ACC (Aggie Station), L.P.; ACC OP
(Marion Pugh), LLC; ACC OP (South College Avenue), LLC; Campus
Investors Baylor, LLC; & ACC OP (Speight Avenue), LLC, Appellants
v. Beth Berry, Brooke Berry, Yael Spirer, and Hailey Hoppenstein,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Appellees, Case No. 03-21-00119-CV (Tex. App.), the Court of
Appeals of Texas for the Third District, Austin, modifies the trial
court's order granting the Tenants' motion to certify the class
action and affirms it.
Background
The Appellants are American Campus Communities and more than 30 of
its subsidiaries (collectively, ACC), all of which are landlords at
separate residential properties throughout Texas. The Appellees are
ACC's former tenants (Tenants) who filed a class action alleging
that ACC violated the Texas Property Code and was strictly liable
to them for civil penalties.
The Tenants filed an "Original Petition and Class Action Petition"
in October 2018 alleging that ACC had violated Section 92.056(g) of
the Property Code by not including statutorily required language in
its uniform lease agreements with Tenants (who were generally
college students) and that the Tenants were entitled to statutory
remedies for such omissions. The Tenants alleged that all the
Defendants except American Campus Communities are subsidiaries of
that corporation and operate under an "umbrella" of corporate
control by that entity or American Campus Communities Operating
Partnership, L.P.
In June 2020, the Tenants filed a motion for class certification.
ACC filed a response in opposition followed by a motion for summary
judgment. The trial court heard argument on ACC's motion for
summary judgment on Sept. 22, 2020, and conducted an evidentiary
hearing on Tenants' motion for certification on Oct. 1, 2020.
On Nov. 4, 2020, the Tenants filed their live (third amended)
petition in which they asserted two "counts" for themselves
individually and the following putative class: "All Texas tenants
under an ACC residential lease that was executed, entered into,
continued, renewed, or extended during the class period." In their
first count -- "Breach of Statutory Duty to Disclose" -- the
Tenants alleged that ACC violated Section 92.056(g) of the Texas
Property Code with respect to the subject lease agreements used
during the proposed class period since same did not contain
required notice language in underlined or bold print (or any
language whatsoever) that informed tenants of the remedies
available under Section 92.056 and Section 92.0561 of the Texas
Property Code. They sought statutory remedies of a "civil penalty
of one month's rent plus $500 as to each member of the defined
class" plus court costs and attorney's fees.
In their second count -- "Breach of Statutory Anti-Waiver
Prohibition" -- the Tenants alleged that ACC's "refusal to include
the mandated language in Section 92.056(g) constitutes an attempt
to constructively inhibit, restrict or waive its landlord duties
and corresponding tenant rights and remedies in violation of"
Section 92.006 and that ACC acted "knowingly" in omitting the
language, entitling each class member to "a civil penalty of one
month's rent plus $2,000."
In a section of their live petition entitled "Equitable Relief,"
the Tenants additionally alleged that ACC "continues to violate
Texas law" for which they "seek the declarations and injunctive
relief outlined in Section 6 of this Third Amended Petition,"
including a declaration of "the legal deficiency" of ACC's "2018
Lease Addendum" and "current leasing agreements." They also asked
the court to issue a permanent injunction (1) prohibiting ACC from
"using, employing, relying on, or seeking any relief based on the
2018 Lease Addendum," (2) "mandating that ACC provide the
statutorily required notice in proper print and use full and
complete language in compliance with Sections 92.006 and
92.056(g)," and (3) enjoining ACC from "utilizing legal defenses
otherwise available to a residential landlord regarding repair
reporting and timing of repair completion for tenancies existing
during the class period."
The trial court signed an order denying ACC's summary-judgment
motion on Nov. 25, 2020, and an order granting class certification
on Feb. 26, 2021. The trial court's certification order certified
the following class: "All Texas tenants residing under an American
Campus Communities residential lease that was executed, entered
into, continued, renewed, or extended between Oct. 1, 2014 and
March 21, 2018 at a property where one of the Defendants was the
owner or landlord." The order certified the following claims: (1)
"Breach of Statutory Duty to Disclose under Texas Property Code
Section 92.056(g)" and (2) "Breach of Statutory Anti-Waiver
Provision under Texas Property Code Section 92.006."
The court also granted certification "pursuant to Rule 42(b)(2),"
because it is "appropriate to address claims seeking declarations"
of the "legal sufficiency of ACC's 2018 Lease Addendum" and
"current leasing agreements" and to "determine the propriety of
retrospective and prospective injunctive relief enjoining ACC from
utilizing legal defenses related to repair reporting and timing of
repair completion for tenancies existing during the class period.
Discussion
ACC contends that the trial court abused its discretion in
certifying the class by finding that (1) common issues predominate
over those affecting only individual class members; and (2) the
class representatives satisfied the typicality and adequacy
requirements. In a third issue, ACC contends that the trial court
erred in certifying the class for declaratory and injunctive
relief.
A. Predominance
The Court of Appeals begins by examining the Property Code
provisions under which Tenants have sued ACC and for which they
seek redress. The Tenants first complain about ACC's alleged
violation of subsection (g) of Section 92.056. Subsection (g)
provides, "A lease must contain language in underlined or bold
print that informs the tenant of the remedies available under this
section and Section 92.0561." The Tenants contend that because the
subject leases did not contain the language required by Section
92.056(g), ACC is strictly liable to them for statutory damages as
provided in Section 92.0563: "A tenant's judicial remedies under
Section 92.056 will include a judgment against the landlord for a
civil penalty of one month's rent plus $500."
While ACC has conceded that the subject leases did not contain the
Section 92.056(g) language, it contends -- as it did in its
summary-judgment motion -- that Tenants cannot meet the
predominance requirement because "as a matter of law" neither
Section 92.056(g) nor 92.006(c) "allows for strict liability" or a
private right of action via Section 92.0563's judicial remedies.
Instead, ACC continues, the judicial remedies provided in Section
92.0563 apply only when a landlord has violated subsection (b) of
Section 92.056, and proof of such violation would necessarily
entail individual proof by every tenant of facts such as the
tenant's notification to their landlord of a condition requiring
repair, the tenant's being current on rent, and the landlord's
failure to make diligent efforts to repair the condition.
The Court of Appeals opines that while the Tenants' live petition
contains allegations of repair requests that Berry, Spirer, and
Hoppenstein filed with their respective landlords regarding
problems such as "excessive water intrusion" into their living
units, those allegations pertain to those plaintiffs' individual
claims in their third count (which is not at issue in this appeal)
for breach of the statutory duty to repair and resulting
personal-property damages. The trial court did not (and was not
asked to) certify that claim on behalf of the class. Instead, the
trial court certified two straightforward strict-liability claims
that will "prevail, or fail, in unison on the basis of the common
proof and the ultimate legal conclusions," such as (1) whether a
landlord is strictly liable to its tenants for mere failure to
include in its lease the language mandated by Section 92.056(g),
(2) whether omitting the required language also constitutes a
violation of the anti-waiver provision in Section 92.006(c), (3)
whether ACC had knowledge of the "legislated requirements" of
residential leases in using its uniform leases, and (4) what scope
of control American Campus Communities, Inc. exercised over its
subsidiaries.
The first two of these are legal determinations that the trial
court has, at least at this juncture, determined adversely to ACC,
and we cannot review that determination in this interlocutory
posture. The second two are factual questions that can be resolved
based on common proof rather than on individualized proof that
could vary from tenant to tenant. Furthermore, should the common
liability questions be determined in Tenants' favor, damages will
be easily ascertainable by applying the simple statutory formula to
ACC's admittedly readily available records.
On this record, the trial court could reasonably have concluded
that common issues of law and fact would predominate over questions
affecting only individual class members. Accordingly, the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Tenants have met
the predominance requirement, and the Court of Appeals overrules
ACC's first issue.
B. Typicality and adequacy
In its second issue, ACC argues that the three class
representatives failed to meet the "intertwined typicality and
adequacy-of-representation" requirements.
As to Hoppenstein and Spirer, ACC contends that the two plaintiffs
are "inadequate class representatives because their claims are
barred on limitations grounds, and the limitations defense renders
their claims atypical of those asserted by the class." In briefing
this issue, ACC explains that its real challenge to Hoppenstein and
Spirer is the trial court's class definition, which—by use of the
word "continued"6—includes tenants who executed leases,
extensions, or renewals before Oct. 1, 2014, but did not execute
any such agreements during the class period. In other words, ACC
complains that the class definition includes Hoppenstein, Spirer,
and potentially others whose leases were merely in force during the
class period but were not executed, extended, or renewed during the
class period. Thus, ACC's argument concludes, those tenants' claims
accrued before Oct. 1, 2014, and are barred by the statute of
limitations.
The Tenants respond that whether certain class members' claims are
barred by statutes of limitations under the circumstances here is a
purely legal question and that Hoppenstein's claim being possibly
barred by limitations is an issue she has in common with other
as-yet-undetermined class members in the same circumstances,
obviating any assertion that Hoppenstein is not a "typical" or
"adequate" class representative.
The Court of Appeals agrees with Tenants. Firstly, it says, "the
existence of a defense against a named party that may not exist
against the rest of the class does not necessarily destroy
typicality." Secondly, when a limitations defense does not involve
disputed facts but merely the application of law to established
facts, it is unlikely to become the focus of the litigation, and an
appellate court generally will not conclude that a trial court
abused its discretion in determining that the named party's claims
are typical of the class. The Court of Appeals therefore declines
ACC's invitation to address the merits of its limitations defense
and instead conclude that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in determining that Hoppenstein and Spirer are typical
and adequate class representatives.
As to Berry, ACC argues that she had no standing when the suit was
filed because her claim had been "mooted" by her receipt of the
2018 addendum months before, and that -- in any event -- her claim
was rendered "atypical" of the class by her admitted refusal to
sign the addendum. However, the Tenants allege that the addendum
was inadequate to meet the statutory requirements and have placed
the adequacy of the addendum at issue in their pleadings.
Therefore, the questions of whether the addendum was sufficient to
meet the statutory requirement and -- if the addendum was
sufficient -- whether it would have a retroactive effect so as to
extinguish a tenant's statutory remedies for a landlord's prior
violation are legal questions going to the merits of the parties'
dispute. Those questions are not appropriately decided in
determining whether a party is an adequate class representative.
Furthermore, even assuming that the 2018 addendum met the statutory
requirements, the Court of Appeals opines that Berry would
nonetheless have a personal stake and "cognizable interest" in the
issue of whether she is entitled to statutory damages for ACC's
alleged statutory violations for the period before she received the
addendum. ACC's argument assumes that the merits of such question
lie in its favor. But, again, we may not consider the merits of a
claim on interlocutory appeal of a certification order.
The Court of Appeals reaches the same conclusion as to ACC's
argument that Berry's admitted refusal to sign the addendum
rendered her claim "atypical" of the class. As it already
discussed, in light of the common issues of fact and law, this
purportedly "uncommon" issue of Berry's refusal to sign the
addendum does not render her claims atypical of those of the class,
even if her status as a non-signatory to the addendum is.
On this record, the trial court could reasonably have concluded
that the class representatives' claims and defenses are typical of
the class and that Berry, Hoppenstein, and Spirer are adequate
representatives. The Court of Appeals accordingly overrules ACC's
second issue.
C. Declaratory and injunctive relief
In its third and final issue, ACC contends that the trial court
erred in certifying a class, under Rule 42(b)(2), "as to a cause of
action for declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the 2018
lease addendum's and ACC's current lease agreements' respective
compliance with Texas Property Code Section 92.006 and 92.056(g)"
(the Equitable Claim). ACC explains the alleged error thus: "The
factual record in no way supported certification of th[e Equitable
C]laim because: (1) the Plaintiffs' operative petition at the time
of the class certification hearing failed to actually state a
separate claim for equitable relief and (2) the Plaintiffs have no
class representative for such a claim."
The Court of Appeals opines that the record belies ACC's first
contention. The trial court did not err in certifying the remainder
of the Equitable Claim, specifically as it relates to the 2018
addendum. First, the trial court did not err in certifying the
remainder of the Equitable Claim, specifically as it relates to the
2018 addendum. Second, Texas's fair-notice pleading standard
supports the conclusion that Tenants' recitation in their second
amended petition regarding the Equitable Claim was sufficient to
put ACC on notice of the claim. Finally, because Tenants challenge
the statutory compliance of the disclosures in the addendum, the
Court of Appeals cannot conclude in this interlocutory appeal that
Berry had no live, justiciable controversy as to the addendum that
a declaration and related injunctive relief would not resolve.
Conclusion
Because the trial court erred in certifying a declaratory and
injunctive claim as to ACC's post-2018 leases, the Court of Appeals
modifies the trial court's certification order to remove references
to such claim, as indicated below by strikethrough for deletions
and underlining for corresponding grammatical corrections:
25. Although Defendants do not contest its their
noncompliance with the statutory mandate of Texas Property Code
Section 92.056(g) prior to circulating the 2018 Lease Addendum.
Plaintiffs assert the Defendants remain non-compliant with the
statutory mandate of Texas Property Code Section 92.056(g). Thus,
there is a live and justiciable controversy at issue. Plaintiffs
request relief enumerating the existence of the statutory right to
notice specifically in mandated form, scope and availability of
enforceability rights and remedies, and allowable damages.
Plaintiffs further seek findings regarding whether the 2018 Lease
Addendum and residential leasing agreements since March 2018 are is
compliant with Texas Property Code.
26. The Court grants certification pursuant to Rule 42(b)(2)
to answer and declare: (1) the existence of the statutory right to
notice specifically in mandated form, (2) applicability of the
Anti-Waiver requirements under Sections 92.006, (3) whether
condition precedents are required to seeking judicial remedies, (4)
whether failure to provide the required notice in correct format
affects past and future reliance of on defenses and allowable
damages. This certification under Rule 42(b)(2) will provide
binding findings declaring whether the 2018 Lease Addendum meets
the disclosure requirements of Section 92.056(g); and whether the
2018 Lease Addendum violates the Anti-Waiver provision of Section
92.006.; whether the ACC residential lease agreements since 2018 to
the present are compliant with Section 92.006 and Section
92.056(g); and (4) determine the appropriateness of formal
prohibition of continued use of residential leases that do not
contain the required statutory language in legislated format.
27. The Court finds that certification is appropriate to
address claims seeking declarations of whether residential leases,
including the use of the 2018 Lease Addendum, implicating an actual
controversy regarding questions of construction or validity, which
will serve a useful purpose or will terminate the certain
controversies between the parties, including: (1) legal sufficiency
of ACC's 2018 Lease Addendum after testing compliance with Section
92.006(c) and/or Section 92.056(g); and (2) legal sufficiency of
ACC's 2018-- current leasing agreements after testing compliance
with Section 92.006(c) and/or Section 92.056(g).
The Court of Appeals affirms the class-certification order, as
modified.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 3, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/8nwvzahm from Leagle.com.
AMERICSOURCEBERGEN: Board Accepts Opioid Suit Against Pharma Cos.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron A, writing for Northwest Signal, reports that the four County
ADAMhs Board approved several additional contracts for the current
fiscal year and also approved a resolution accepting the One Ohio
lawsuit agreement against three large pharmaceutical distributors
for contributing to the opioid crisis.
The ADAMhs Board participated in the class action lawsuit against
pharmaceutical distributors AmericsourceBergen, Cardinal Health and
McKesson Corp. According to board CEO Rob Geisige, as one of many
participants in the lawsuit, the four county board must apply for
specific grants to the One Ohio Foundation that will be created to
distribute most the funds coming to Ohio over the next 18 years.
[GN]
ANNOVIS BIO: Schall Law Firm Reminds of October 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Annovis Bio,
Inc. ("Annovis" or "the Company") (NYSE American: ANVS) for
violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between May 21,
2021 and July 28, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before October 18, 2021.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Annovis's ANVS401 failed to demonstrate
statistically significant results across multiple patient
populations related to important metrics like judgment and
problem-solving ability. Based on this fact, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about Annovis,
investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
ANTHONY VINEYARDS: Plaintiffs Must File Bid to Amend by Sept. 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEBASTIANA
MARTINEZ-SANCHEZ, et al., v. ANTHONY VINEYARDS, INC., et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-01404-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L.
Thurston entered an order that:
-- The request for additional time to file the motion to
amend is granted.
-- The plaintiffs shall file their motion to amend, if at
all, no later than September 24, 2021. In their motion,
the plaintiffs shall explain why they proposed Mr.
Martinez originally when they now admit he cannot take on
the role.
Anthony Vineyards produces fruit products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kgHgwv at no extra charge.[CC]
APPLE INC: Class Action Mulled Over Cracked M1 MacBook Screens
--------------------------------------------------------------
News18 reports that Apple MacBook Pro and MacBook Air with the M1
chipsets have been a hit product since their launch. However, there
has been a chink in the armour as many users are complaining about
the screens on their M1-powered MacBook Air and MacBook Pro laptops
are cracking for no reason apparently. This has come under the
notice of Washington-based law firm named Migiliaccio & Rathod that
is now seeking reports of owners with cracked screens to prepare a
class action lawsuit against the iPhone maker. "Many users allege
that they have opened their devices from the closed position
without applying any undue pressure, only to find dramatic cracks
in the retina display, often accompanied by black bars running
across the screen," the law firm said in a statement.
The reports of cracked MacBook screens first came to light around
July this year, with both M1-powered MacBook Pro and MacBook Air
owners reporting that their display cracks during normal usage. A
9to5Mac report quotes a user as saying that one fine day they
opened their M1-powered MacBook Pro, only to find cracks in the
screen. He said that he was asked to pay GBP570 (roughly Rs 58,000)
upfront in order to repair it. "I told them that I had done nothing
to damage the screen but their response was that their technicians
would decide if I had damaged it and would, in that case, lose my
money," the user was quoted as saying. However, the same 9to5Mac
report says that Apple did repair or replace the machines free of
charge in some cases.
There are also threads on Apple Support Communities and Reddit,
where users have reported that the cracks occurred when they opened
or closed the lid, or that they were simply there next time they
came to use the machine.
Migiliaccio & Rathod LLP does not state that it is contemplating a
class action lawsuit, and says that it is investigating reports it
has received. The law firm had, in 2018, investigated Microsof
Surface Pro 4's screen flickering issue for a potential suit, but
cancelled it later after Microsoft announced a replacement program.
[GN]
APPLE INC: Class Action Over Siri Voice Assistant Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fox Business reports that a federal judge has given a green light
for a class-action lawsuit claiming that Apple's Siri voice
assistant violates users' privacy.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White said the
plaintiffs would be allowed to move forward with lawsuits trying to
prove that Siri routinely recorded their private conversations
because of "accidental activations" and that Apple provided the
conversations to advertisers, according to Reuters. The plaintiffs
claim that Apple violated the federal Wiretap Act and California
privacy law, among other claims.
Separate lawsuits against Google and Amazon make similar claims
about voice assistants. One of the most common claims cited in the
lawsuits is that conversations were recorded without user consent
and then used by advertisers to target the plaintiffs.
This is happening against a backdrop of surging smart speaker
sales.
As of June 2021, the installed base of smart speakers in the U.S.
reached 126 million units, jumping from 20 million units in June
2017, according to Consumer Intelligence Research Partners (CIRP).
Amazon has the biggest slice of the installed base, with 69% as of
June of this year.
The installed base of smart speakers grew considerably during the
COVID-19 pandemic, adding over 25 million units in the past year,"
said Josh Lowitz, CIRP Partner and Co-Founder in a statement.
Should you be worried? How to protect yourself
Amazon, Apple and Google all offer smart speakers that use
variations of voice assistant technology that is activated when
users say key words such as "Hey Siri" for Apple devices or "OK
Google" for Google products or "Alexa" for Amazon smart devices.
Amazon devices store that data when activated with a key word or
so-called wake word. "No audio is stored or sent to the cloud
unless the device detects the wake word (or Alexa is activated by
pressing a button)," an Amazon spokesperson told FOX Business in an
email.
"Customers have several options to manage their recordings,
including the option to not have their recordings saved at all and
the ability to automatically delete recordings on an ongoing three-
or 18-month basis," the spokesperson added.
If you don't want to be recorded by Alexa, in the Alexa app go into
the "Privacy" menu. Then go to "Manage your Alexa data" then
"Choose how long to save recordings." Then select "Don't save
recordings."
Amazon collects and uses voice recordings to deliver and improve
services, according to the company. This includes helping train
Alexa to better understand different accents and dialects and to
provide the right response to requests.
Amazon also said it "manually" reviews data but does not sell it to
third parties.
"To help improve Alexa, we manually review and annotate a small
fraction of one percent of Alexa requests. Access to human review
tools is only granted to employees who require them to improve the
service," the Amazon spokesperson said.
"Our annotation process does not associate voice recordings with
any customer identifiable information. Customers can opt-out of
having their voice recordings included in the fraction of one
percent of voice recordings that get reviewed," the spokesperson
said.
By default, Google doesn't retain your audio recordings, Jose
Castaneda, a Google Spokesperson, told Fox Business. "We dispute
the claims in this case and will vigorously defend ourselves,"
Castañeda said in a statement.
However, if you want to confirm that the Google setting is off, go
to your Google account and then to "Data and Privacy" then "Web &
App Activity" and make sure the box is unchecked next to "Include
audio recordings." The default setting is unchecked.
Apple no longer retains Siri recordings without user permission,
according to an Apple statement made in 2019. Siri will only retain
your data if you choose to opt-in via settings on Apple devices.
Amazon would not comment on the lawsuit, and Apple has yet to
respond to a request for comment. [GN]
APPLE INC: Faces Suit Over App That Led to Cryptocurrency Theft
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Ericson Jr at courthousenews.com reports that cryptocurrency
users who downloaded a Apple application called "Toast Plus" saw
their money disappear, and now they're suing the iPhone maker in a
class action lawsuit filed.
According to the complaint filed in federal court in Maryland,
Apple allowed hackers to place a spoof or "phishing" application
disguised as a cryptocurrency wallet in its on-line App Store,
inducing the plaintiff and others to download and install a
criminal portal into their crypto accounts.
The complaint, alleging negligence, fraud and a host of
computer-specific privacy torts, was filed on behalf of Maryland
resident Hadona Diep by Joshua Whitaker of the Baltimore law firm
Aldelphi Law.
Apple is liable because it failed to vet the software distributed
by its online store, which it tightly controls by allowing only
approved vendors and extracting a (until recently) 30% commission
on every sale, the lawsuit says, adding that the boilerplate
disclaimers in its user agreement don't apply: "The fact that Toast
Plus was not an actual application, but instead a medium for the
commission of fraud, makes any existing contract using it as
subject matter void."
Neither the company nor the plaintiff's attorney responded
immediately to a request for comment on the lawsuit.
Just weeks ago, Apple announced the settlement of another class
action suit filed by US-based software developers, promising better
terms for the people who make much of the software that iPhone
users run.
"From the beginning, the App Store has been an economic miracle; it
is the safest and most trusted place for users to get apps, and an
incredible business opportunity for developers to innovate, thrive
and grow," the company said in a press release announcing the
changes, which are pending approval by a judge.
In fact the App Store is just about the only place anyone can get
iPhone apps, and Apple has always claimed that's for the users'
security.
Users of the Toast Plus app found it anything but trustworthy,
according to the lawsuit.
"Plaintiff believed that Toast Plus was a version of Toast Wallet,
a well known cryptocurrency wallet, as the names were similar and
the logo used for the application in the App Store was the same or
nearly identical," the lawsuit says.
In January of 2018 Diep transferred 474 Ripple ("XRP")
cryptocurrency coins to a cryptocurrency wallet which was shut down
the next month.
"Plaintiff thereafter linked her private XRP key, or a seed phrase,
into Toast Plus in March of 2021," the complaint says, but did not
transfer any of the money because she was holding the coins as an
investment.
Months later, in August, she checked the wallet to find that her
cryptocurrency was gone. In fact, according to the lawsuit, she
"discovered that not only did she have no XRP in the Wallet, her
account was 'deleted' on March 3, 2021."
Calls to the Toast Plus company, Apple and then law enforcement
followed, according to the complaint, but no one took
responsibility. The lawsuit says she lost more than $5,000.
An online message board frequented by cryptocurrency users tells a
similar story.
"I went to the App Store and downloaded the first wallet that came
up," a user calling themself Badinker wrote at ycombinator's
message board in March. "So I went ahead and imported the private
key and instantly before I could send the exchange all the XRP was
transferred to . . . a known scam account."
The complaint says anyone who downloaded the Toast Plus software is
part of the class, "entitled to statutory damages of the greater of
$10,000 or $100 per day for each day of violation, actual and
punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and Defendant's
profits obtained from the above described violations." [GN]
APPLE INC: Judge Ordered to Implement App Store Payment Changes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Gurman and Olga Kharif, writing for Bloomberg, report that
Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.'s Google are two of the world's most
profitable companies, and their app marketplaces are among their
most profitable endeavors: according to analysts, Apple's App Store
takes in more than $20 billion a year with a profit margin above
75%. Now such practices are coming under increasing scrutiny. U.S.
senators and European regulators have griped about the "gatekeeper
control" that Apple and Google have with their mobile operating
systems. South Korea has moved to become the first country to
impose curbs on the companies' app marketplaces. And a U.S. judge
has ordered Apple to make sweeping changes as a result of a
challenge from one of the world's biggest gamemakers.
1. What gamemaker has sued Apple?
Epic Games Inc., the maker of Fortnite, sued Apple over the cut it
takes from App Store transactions and what Epic claims are
antitrust violations. Epic believes it shouldn't be forced to use
Apple's payment system. The iPhone and iPad only come with one
digital marketplace for downloading apps and the App Store's
payment system charges developers commission of as much as 30%.
Epic wants to use its own payment system for its hit video game
Fortnite or for Apple to allow alternative App Stores. In August
2020, Epic circumvented Apple's rules and added its own payment
system to Fortnite. Apple quickly removed the game from the App
Store and Epic filed its lawsuit hours later. Apple countersued for
breach of contract.
2. What is Epic unhappy about?
Apple device users spent $72 billion on the App Store in 2020, with
almost $22 billion of that going to the iPhone maker, according to
SensorTower estimates. Some developers deride Apple's fees as an
unfair and unwarranted tax, especially since it applies not just to
the purchase of an app, but to anything bought within one, such as
digital weapons, costumes and other add-ons popular in Fortnite.
3. Why does Apple charge App Store commissions?
Apple takes as much as 30% of the revenue developers get from paid
apps, in-app-purchases and subscriptions. The company argues the
App Store's success is related to its review process, tight
integration with its hardware, and privacy and safety rules. The
company's payment system ensures consumers have a seamless
experience and are protected from fraud. And for developers,
there's access to about 1 billion Apple device owners who often
spend more on apps than Android users.
4. Is Apple backing down?
Exemptions have been added in recent years, but so far none apply
to Epic's case. In 2016, Apple lowered to 15% the cut it takes from
subscriptions beyond the first year. In 2020, it also agreed to
lower its share to 15% if a developer earns less than $1 million in
any year. In August 2021, it settled a class-action lawsuit by
paying $100 million to a range of app makers. It also agreed to
allow developers the use of communications outside the iOS app such
as email to promote alternative payment methods that exclude Apple.
In September, there was a further concession for so-called reader
apps spanning content like magazines, newspapers, books, audio,
music and video. Starting in 2022, they will be allowed to add a
link in their app to direct users to other payment systems.
5. What did the judge do in the Epic case?
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who had overseen a
three-week trial in May, ordered Apple to allow developers to steer
consumers to outside payment methods for mobile apps. The judge
concluded that Apple has engaged in anticompetitive conduct that
harms consumers by preventing them from getting cheaper prices, but
she didn't go as far as Epic sought. She said she could not
conclude that Apple is a monopolist, and stopped short of ordering
Apple to cut its 30% fee, though she said it isn't justified. She
also ordered Epic to pay $4 million in damages to Apple for breach
of contract. The ruling was seen as a blow to Apple's App Store
business model. Apple, however, called the ruling a justification,
saying that "the court has affirmed what we've known all along: the
App Store is not in violation of antitrust law." Epic has announced
its intent to appeal.
6. Where does Google come into this?
Google, via its Android Play Store, is also under scrutiny from
regulators and developers. But a there's key difference. Google
lets Android devices run other app stores that can offer different
payment methods. Still, Epic Games also sued Google when the
internet giant removed Fortnite from the Play Store last year for
the same reason as Apple.
7. What's happening in South Korea?
In late August, President Moon Jae-in's Democratic Party used its
parliamentary supermajority to pass a bill that will ban companies
from forcing developers to use their online payment systems. The
bill was submitted in 2020 after Google said it would require all
apps to use its payment system, charging up to a 30% commission on
in-app purchases. That's a model common in other parts of the world
and also employed by Apple. Earlier this year, the search giant
lowered commissions to 15% for the first $1 million of revenue
earned by developers, in part due to a global backlash. Under the
latest version, companies that operate app stores must allow their
users to pay through a variety of payment systems. It stipulates
that tech giants must not "abuse their status to force their users
to only use specific payment methods."
(Updates section 5 with Epic to appeal) [GN]
ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Banuelos Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Gustavo Banuelos, Fernando Izarraraz,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. Armstrong Flooring, Inc., a Pennsylvania
corporation, Case No. 21STCV26905 was removed from the Los Angeles
County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on Sept. 15, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-07393 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.
Armstrong Flooring -- https://www.armstrongflooring.com/ -- is an
industry-leading manufacturer of innovative flooring products
focusing on design, performance and durability for the home and
commercial applications.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
ATLANTA ALLERGY: Alleged Data Breach Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta Allergy & Asthma recently learned that unauthorized
individuals gained access to its computer systems from
approximately January 5, 2021, to January 13, 2021. On July 8,
2021, and after a cybersecurity investigation, Atlanta Allergy &
Asthma determined that certain sensitive private health information
was exposed and exfiltrated during the data breach.
Breached data may include, but is not necessarily limited to: full
patient names, dates of birth, patient account numbers, Social
Security numbers, treatment data, treatment costs, procedures
performed, diagnoses, provider names, dates of treatment, treatment
location, financial account information, routing numbers, and
health insurance data.
As a result of the data breach, Atlanta Allergy & Asthma has
advised affected individuals to consider enrolling in a credit
monitoring services, placing security freezes and fraud alerts on
their credit files, as well as taking other mitigating steps. For
additional information from Atlanta Allergy & Asthma about the data
breach, please visit: Atlanta Allergy & Asthma Notice of Data
Security Incident.
If you believe you are a victim of the Atlanta Allergy & Asthma
data breach, and would like to participate in a class action
lawsuit regarding this data breach, please submit your information
via the form on this webpage. This website is not associated with
nor authorized by Atlanta Allergy & Asthma or any affiliated
companies.
The form is available at:
https://www.abingtonlaw.com/Atlanta-Allergy-Asthma-Data-Breach-class-action-lawsuit.html
[GN]
AUTOLOTTO INC: Burstein Sues Over Fraudulent Investment Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
VARDA BURSTEIN and similarly situated Digital Security Holders,
Plaintiffs v. AUTOLOTTO, INC., and TONY DIMATTEO, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00793 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 8, 2021) seeks redress for
AutoLotto's fraudulent scheme that it perpetrated on the Plaintiff
and other unknowing investors in violation of the Section 12 of
Securities Act of 1933.
In 2018, Ms. Burstein invested $3 million with AutoLotto, an online
lottery company that generated revenue through state-sanctioned
lotteries and charitable raffles.
In February 2021, AutoLotto was in the process of being acquired by
Trident Acquisitions Corp. for hundreds of millions of dollars.
Indeed, in July 2021, it was announced that AutoLotto would be
receiving $43 million in cash to expand its operations, says the
suit.
Ms. Burstein's investment took the form of a convertible note,
which would convert into equity in AutoLotto if a qualified
financing did not occur within two years of her investment. With
the two-year mark quickly approaching and a qualified financing
likely not on the horizon, AutoLotto, and many individuals who
stood to benefit tremendously from a sale of AutoLotto, realized
that Plaintiff (and many other convertible note holders) would soon
share in the profits resulting from AutoLotto's future acquisition.
AutoLotto announced that investors could convert their investment.
This conversion was couched as a "digital security," giving the
holder access to a portion of revenue in an online lottery platform
that AutoLotto would claim had amazing potential and promise, added
the suit.
According to the complaint, with this alleged deceitful maneuver,
AutoLotto would keep all of its investors' money, wipe them out
from the capitalization tables, and divert from these investors all
of the benefits of their investments without ever having to account
to them.
The complaint asserts that the Defendants violated the 1933 Act and
are liable to Plaintiff because they offered and sold "digital
securities" to Plaintiff when the "digital securities" were neither
subject to an effective registration statement pursuant to Section
5 of the 1933 Act.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Greyber, Esq.
CALLAGY LAW, P.C.
1900 NW Corporate Blvd. Suite 310W
Boca Raton, FL 33431
E-mail: jgreyber@callagylaw.com
BANKERS LIFE: Misclassifies Sales Representatives, Emory Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN EMORY, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs v. BANKERS LIFE
AND CASUALTY COMPANY; COLONIAL PENN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-04347-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, September 3,
2021) is a class and collective action complaint brought against
the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.
Plaintiff Christian Emory was employed by the Defendants in
Zanesville, Ohio from July 2019 through September 2019 as a sales
representative.
According to the complaint, the Defendants misclassified the
Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees "independent contractors."
Despite regularly working more than 40 hours in a workweek, the
Defendants did not pay them for all hours worked, including minimum
wage and overtime compensation, for the extensive hours worked
daily and weekly. Instead, they were only compensated with
commission payments. In addition, the Defendants did not compensate
them for the required meetings and/or trainings, and failed to
reimburse them for costs related to the use of their computers or
telephone or for mileage. The Defendants also failed to provide
them with accurate itemized wage statements. Moreover, the
Defendants failed to pay them all the required wages due at
termination of employment, the suit says.
The Corporate Defendants are insurance providers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
8 N. Court St., Suite 403
Athens, OH 45701
Tel: (847) 986-5889
Fax: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
BANNER BANK: Bid for Summary Judgment Partly Granted in Bolding
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY BOLDING, et al., v.
BANNER BANK, Case No. 2:17-cv-00601-RSL (W.D. Wash.) the Hon. Judge
Robert S. Lasnik entered an order granting in part and denying in
part Banner's motion for summary judgment.
Banner asserts that there is a lack of evidence showing that the
vast majority of the individuals who make up the class worked hours
that were unpaid, that the class claims fail entirely because no
reasonable jury could find that Banner knew or should have that
mortgage loan officers (MLOs) were performing off-the-clock work,
that plaintiff Kelly Bolding is judicially estopped from pursuing
the wage and hour claims asserted here, and that there is no
evidence of bad faith or intent that could support an award of
liquidated or double damages. Banner also seeks a declaration
regarding the statutes of limitation that apply to the claims of
Banner's Oregon employees.
Oregon has a six-year statute of limitations for claims based on
the taking or detaining of wages, but a two-year limitations period
for "an action for overtime or premium pay or for penalties or
liquidated damages for failure to pay overtime or premium pay."
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XvyrGw at no extra charge.[CC]
BAUSCH HEALTH: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $300 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Pharma Letter reports that court filings show that
Canada-headquartered Bausch Health (TSX: BHC) has agreed to pay
$300 million to settle an antitrust suit related to diabetes med
Glumetza (metformin hydrochloride).
The class action suit accused the firm of keeping a monopoly on the
therapy by paying off competitors, thereby enabling an eight-fold
price increase in 2015.
First sold by Assertio Therapeutics (Nasdaq: ASRT), Glumetza is an
extended-release formulation of the common diabetes therapy
metformin.
Bausch, which was formerly known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals, picked
up the treatment subsequently. The antitrust case was initiated in
2019.
The legal arguments center around the role of Indian drugmaker
Lupin Pharmaceuticals, which created a generic version of the
treatment and was set to launch in 2012, but agreed to delay until
2016.
This so-called "pay-for-delay" deal enabled Bausch to retain market
exclusivity for a period, increasing the price from under $6 to
over $50, and taking in over a billion dollars in revenue.
In May, a US District Court judge ruled that both Lupin and
Assertio should also face trial over the claims, with Assertio
later settling for an undisclosed sum. Lupin is due in court in
October.
Lawyers in the class action suit, which was brought by consumers of
the product, say they are content with the settlement and have
requested that a Californian District Court approve it. [GN]
BERLIN SKIN: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Berlin Skin, LLC. The
case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Berlin Skin, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-07720 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Berlin Skin -- https://www.berlinskin.com/ -- offers clean, natural
skin care for the modern minimalist.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
BOB DEAN: Nursing Home Residents File Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Chris McCrory, writing for WWL, reports that four nursing home
residents and their representatives have filed a class-action
lawsuit against real-estate mogul Bob Dean and the seven nursing
homes he owns over the conditions at a warehouse in Independence,
La. where they were brought ahead of Hurricane Ida.
Conditions in the warehouse were described as nightmarish, with
residents crying out for help while lying on mattresses on the
ground, in their own filth and without air conditioning, for days.
At least seven of those residents have died since Aug. 27, when the
first of them were brought to the facility. More than a dozen were
hospitalized for problems incurred there.
According to the lawsuit filed on Sept. 6 in Jefferson Parish, "it
is likely that additional deaths and hospitalizations of residents
will occur as a direct and proximate result" of being in the
warehouse.
Despite the seven nursing homes' evacuation plans being cleared by
the Louisiana Department of Health, the residents claim in the
lawsuit that the warehouse, known as the Waterbury Building, was
ill-equipped to handle anywhere close to the number of people who
arrived -- especially given the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
LDH rescued 843 residents from the facility on Sept. 1 and 2, days
after the storm had passed. In the five days between when the first
residents began arriving and when LDH took over the facility and
began evacuating them to shelters across the state, dozens of 9-1-1
calls came in from residents and staff members.
"As residents began to arrive, it was immediately clear there was
insufficient space and beds for the large and excessive number of
residents that (Dean) chose to evacuate to the Waterbury Building,"
the lawsuit contends. "As a result, some residents were forced to
sleep in their wheelchairs or other chairs they could find. Some
residents were forced to sleep on, or at least lie down on, the
concrete floors."
If you have a loved one who was at this facility or worked there
yourself, we would like to talk with you. Email cmccrory@wwltv.com
or text 504-641-3471.
According to both interviews with the people inside and the legal
documents filed on their behalf, there were simply not enough
nurses and other staff members to care for more than 800 seniors.
And the troubles only compounded after the storm. One of the
buildings where they were housing some of the residents flooded as
Ida passed overhead
"Due to the water intrusion, a number of residents were on
mattresses that began to float in the water," according to the
lawsuit. Terrified seniors were then taken to other areas in the
facility and crammed into already cramped and privacy-absent rooms
with hundreds of others in putrid conditions.
"The (smells) emanating from the port-a-lets became putrid, to the
point that staff members and residents alike would uncontrollably
vomit and heave when sensing the odors, noxious vapors and fumes
off-gassing in the area," the lawsuit contents.
Photos embedded in the legal document show piles of trash on the
ground outside the warehouse, as well as a sea of mattresses on the
floor with little room between them.
Scenes from the Independence warehouse where residents claim
nightmarish conditions
A separate video obtained by WWL-TV shows water pouring in and
soaking mattresses. Residents and nursing home staff say this was
part of the flooding that forced the hasty evacuation of part of
the facility into other wings.
In a phone interview with our partners at the Times-Picayune | New
Orleans Advocate, Bob Dean defended his company's actions and
downplayed the deaths at the facility.
"I usually lose two to three people a day that pass on. So that
four out of the five that passed in fact were hospice patients.
Which you know are people who are on their way out," Dean said
during the call.
He also defended the decision to cram more than 800 seniors into a
leaky and poorly equipped warehouse in Independence that he owns.
"In a contained open area we actually can give better care because
you can see everyone," Dean said.
The state of Louisiana has already yanked the licenses for the
seven nursing homes, meaning they will not be able to bring
residents back after the storm or admit any new patients.
The legal fallout from the deadly Independence situation is likely
just beginning, with other families likely to file lawsuits in the
coming days.
State officials including Gov. John Bel Edwards and Attorney
General Jeff Landry have called for thorough investigations into
how the situation was allowed and how it could have deteriorated so
quickly. [GN]
BOSTON BEER: Robbins Geller Reminds of November 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of The
Boston Beer Company, Inc. (NYSE: SAM) securities between April 22,
2021 and September 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") have
until November 15, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. The
Boston Beer class action lawsuit charges Boston Beer and certain of
its top executives and a director with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The Boston Beer class action lawsuit (Siegel
v. The Boston Beer Company, Inc., No. 21-cv-07693) was commenced on
September 14, 2021 in the Southern District of New York.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Boston Beer 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 Boston Beer class action lawsuit must be
filed with the court no later than November 15, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Boston Beer class action lawsuit alleges
that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Boston
Beer's hard seltzer sales were decelerating; (ii) as a result,
Boston Beer was reasonably likely to incur inventory write-offs;
(iii) Boston Beer was reasonably likely to incur shortfall fees
payable to third-party brewers; (iv) consequently, Boston Beer's
financial results would be adversely impacted; and (v) thus,
defendants' positive statements about Boston Beer's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
On July 22, 2021, Boston Beer reduced its full year 2021 guidance,
expecting earnings per share between $18 and $22, down from a prior
range of $22 and $26. In doing so, Boston Beer cited
softer-than-expected sales in the hard seltzer category and overall
beer industry and also stated that it had "overestimated the growth
of the hard seltzer category in the second quarter." On this news,
Boston Beer's share price fell 26%.
Then, on September 8, 2021, Boston Beer withdrew its 2021 financial
guidance, citing decelerating sales of hard seltzer products.
Boston Beer also stated that it "expects to incur hard
seltzer-related inventory write-offs, shortfall fees payable to 3rd
party brewers, and other costs" for the remainder of fiscal 2021.
On this news, Boston Beer's share price fell an additional 3.7%,
further damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Boston Beer
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Boston Beer 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 Boston Beer class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Boston Beer class action lawsuit. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Boston
Beer class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
About Robbins Geller
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in
securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained
many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including
the largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion -
in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for
recovering $1.6 billion for investors last year, more than double
the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs' firm.
Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. [GN]
BOSTON BEER: Thornton Law Reminds of November 15 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors who purchased The Boston
Beer Company, Inc. securities (NYSE:SAM) between April 22, 2021 and
September 8, 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/BostonBeer 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 SAM.
Investors do not need to be the Lead Plaintiff to recover as class
members if the case is successful.
The case alleges that Boston Beer and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (i)
Boston Beer's hard seltzer sales were decelerating; (ii) as a
result, Boston Beer was reasonably likely to incur inventory
write-offs; (iii) Boston Beer was reasonably likely to incur
shortfall fees payable to third party brewers; and (iv) as a result
of the foregoing, Boston Beer's financial results would be
adversely impacted.
Interested Boston Beer investors have until November 15, 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]
BOUGHTMILK.COM: Settlement Reached in Price Fixing Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Reynolds, writing for KY3, reports that it pays to watch
KY3′s On Your Side. Back in 2017, Ashley Reynolds reported on a
class action lawsuit titled BoughtMilk.com. If you filed a claim,
check your email. Money is on the way.
It's a settlement against milk producers over price-fixing.
Missouri is one of the states included in the $52-million
settlement. Melissa Inman in Cassville watches On Your Side. She's
now $7 richer.
"I kind of like to go off your leads," said Melissa Inman. "I don't
usually sign-up for things that I'm not for sure."
You can no longer file a claim in this case. Remember, be careful
when signing up for these class action settlements. Make sure it's
a legit lawsuit. Workers at SeniorAge say It can be tricky.
"The problem with a lot of the class action lawsuits is that the
promise that they offer, to seniors or to whomever, is the same end
or promise that scammers and fraudulent people offer," said Alex
Cobb with SeniorAge. "It's kind of the the promise of free money."
Never give your social security number.
"I just gave my email address. That was it," said Inman.
Before you give any personal info, run it by someone you trust.
Remember this process takes years. Be leery of quick cash offers.
According to court documents, digital payments for this case will
go out starting at the end of the month. [GN]
BRAD LITTLE: Veenstra Files Suit in D. Idaho
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brad Little, et al.
The case is styled as Albert Pete Veenstra, III, Kent Ellis,
Charles Lynn Sacolick, Allen Brandt, Tony Garren, Hunter Smith,
Weston Allen, Ruben Garzia, Shane Striker, William Canite, Joshae
Patterson, Erineo Garza, Jose Cuevas, Hans Kruger, James Elkins,
Frank Alesi, Matthew Smith, Steve Brown, Jason Homburg, Mario
Garcia, Christopher Pielstick, Clarence Meeks, Alex Watanabe, David
Hoots, Ryan Hale, Kim Firouzbakhah, Nathak Knutson, Acencion
Hernandez, Christopher Ostergar, Daniel Perkins, Dennis Reed,
Tyrell McKnight, and all those similarly situated under the care,
custody and control of the IDOC or the Idaho Department of
Probation and Parole v. Brad Little, as Governor of the State of
Idaho, in official Capacity; Idaho State Board of Correction
Members, in their official capacities; Director IDOC Josh Tewalt,
in his official capacity; Alberto Ramirez, in His Official
Capacity; Idaho Dept. of Probation and Parole; Commission of Pardon
and Parole; State of Idaho; Case No. 1:21-cv-00341-DCN (D. Idaho,
Sept. 15, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.
Bradley Jay Little -- http://www.bradlittleforidaho.com/-- is an
American politician serving as the 33rd governor of Idaho since
January 2019.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
BRECKENRIDGE GRAND: FLSA Collective Action Gets Conditional Status
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARTHUR MCMAHON v.
BRECKENRIDGE GRAND VACATIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00754-CMA-STV
(D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Christine M. Arguello entered an order
-- granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional
Certification and to Facilitate Notice;
-- conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective action of the following individuals:
"all current and former sales personnel of Defendant
working anywhere in the United States between three years
prior to the date the Complaint was filed and the
present;"
-- authorizing the Plaintiff to submit his proposed notice
plan to the Court for review within fourteen days of the
date of entry of this Order; and
-- directing thre Defendant to provide thr Plaintiff with a
list of contact information for individuals within 14 days
of the date of entry of this Order.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has carried his minimal initial
burden to demonstrate that class treatment is appropriate at this
stage in this case.
Mr. McMahon, worked for Defendant as a "sales broker," assisting
clients purchasing ownership interests in one o more of Defendant's
properties, beginning at some time between 1997 and 1999.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant incorrectly classified him as
an independent contractor rather than an employee, and that
Defendant failed to pay him overtime wages and other benefits
throughout his employment. The Plaintiff also alleges that other
workers classified as in independent contractors by the Defendant
may be similarly situated to him.
Breckenridge operates four shared ownership, or "timeshare,"
properties in Breckenridge, Colorado.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lBN5nN at no extra charge.[CC]
BUTTERBALL LLC: Federal Judge Tossed Poultry Workers' Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
bloomberglaw.com reports that Butterball LLC won't have to face a
proposed class action alleging it violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act and North Carolina wage law by failing to pay the correct
overtime wage to certain workers at its poultry processing plants,
a federal judge ruled.
Osvaldo Figueroa, who caught and loaded turkeys onto trucks that
transported them to the slaughterhouse, submitted paystubs showing
he was paid $12 per truckload plus $8.96 per hour worked beyond 40
per week.
But these paystubs directly refute Figueroa's claim that Butterball
owed him a higher overtime rate because they reflect a piece-rate,
not hourly, pay scheme. [GN]
C PEPPER: Deadline for Class Cert Bid Filling Set for May 3, 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID FLINN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. C PEPPER LOGISTICS
LLC, LANTER DELIVERY SYSTEMS, LLC, and JAMES PEPPER, Case No.
2:20-cv-02215-JAR-KGG (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth G. Gale
entered an amended scheduling order as follows:
Event Deadline/Setting
-- Supplementation of initial 40 days before completion
disclosures of discovery
-- All pre-certification May 3, 2022
discovery completed
-- Experts (used in December 9, 2021
pre-certification discovery)
disclosed by plaintiff
-- Experts (used in January 24, 2022
pre-certification discovery)
disclosed by defendant
-- Rebuttal experts (used in February 21, 2022
pre-certification discovery)
disclosed
-- Motion for class certification May 3, 2022
C Pepper Logistics was founded in 2009. The Company's line of
business includes provides trucking and transfer services.
Lanter Delivery provides transportation and courier services to the
Agricultural, Automotive and Trucking Industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XrZ8fw at no extra charge.[CC]
CANADA: Faces Equitas Society Suit Over Unfair Pension Reforms
--------------------------------------------------------------
Equitas Society, the national veterans' organization which in 2011
sued the federal government over pension reforms which have
negatively affected Canadian veterans, is calling on all federal
leaders to commit to the Canadian Military Covenant and the
Military Bill of Rights that was promised in parliament in 2015.
The Covenant and Bill of Rights are important pieces of legislation
that will help address the shameful conditions faced by permanently
disabled veterans and their families, as well as the families of
the men and women that sacrificed their lives in the service of
their country.
Without the Covenant and Bill of Rights, veterans across Canada
will continue to face:
-- Multi-year wait times to have their disability claims
processed.
-- Inadequate suicide prevention support and strategies.
-- Inadequate support for homeless veterans.
-- Time-consuming and inefficient paperwork applications instead
of online processes.
-- Doctors reluctant to take on veteran patients because of
massive paperwork involved; and
-- Little support for transitioning back to civilian life.
To date, the Conservative Party of Canada leader Erin O'Toole and
People's Party of Canada Leader Maxime Bernier have signed the
pledge to enact the Covenant and the Bill of Rights in the next
parliament. The teams of every other federal party leader have
received pledge documents from Equitas Society, but none have yet
signed on. This includes NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, Green leader
Annamie Paul, Bloc Quebecois Leader Yves-François Blanchet, and
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, whose party reneged on a promise in
2015 to enact pensions for veterans.
"Canada needs to take better care and show more respect for the men
and women that put their lives in danger and make tremendous
sacrifices to serve our country," says Major (Ret'd.) Mark
Campbell, wounded in Afghanistan in 2008. "The Canadian Military
Covenant and the Military Bill of Rights will help make that
possible and show our veterans that we stand behind them just as
strongly as they stand up for us. We call on each party leader to
demonstrate their commitment to Canada's veterans by signing the
pledge and enacting this important legislation."
The call for a Canadian Military Covenant and the Military Bill of
Rights stemmed from the Equitas Society's unsuccessful six-year
legal battle with the federal government to secure better
disability benefits for returning soldiers of the Afghan War. The
feedback from the courts throughout the legal process was that
parliament needs to pass legislation to secure the support for the
Canadian armed forces sought by Equitas Society.
In May 2015, a House of Commons motion regarding the Canadian
Military Covenant and the Military Bill of Rights passed
unanimously, stating:
"That, in the opinion of the House, a standalone covenant of moral,
social, legal, and fiduciary obligation exists between the Canadian
people and the government to provide equitable financial
compensation and support services to past and active members of the
Canadian Armed Forces who have been injured, disabled or have died
as a result of military service, and to their dependents, which the
government is obligated to fulfil."
Six years later, the men and women of Canada's armed forces, their
families, and veterans across Canada, are still waiting for
Canada's political parties to honour their sacrifices by enacting
this promised legislation.
For more information, and to view the proposed Military Covenant
and the Military Bill of Rights, please visit
www.equitassociety.ca
About the Equitas Society (Equitas)
Equitas was formed in 2011 to support a class-action lawsuit
against the Government of Canada for the reinstatement of the
Pension Act Pension for injured soldiers returning from the Afghan
War. Though the court case was ultimately lost, Equitas has not
wavered in its resolve to achieve the restoration of veterans'
benefits and rights. Equitas is continually moving forward to have
a Canadian Military Covenant and a Military Bill of Rights
enshrined in Canadian Law and are seeking this action via a
political solution. For more information, visit
www.equitassociety.ca
For further information: Jim Scott, President, Equitas Society,
604-230-0585, jim.scott@shaw.ca [GN]
CHICAGO, IL: Stop-and-Frisk Lawsuit Granted Class Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Williams, writing for The Hill, reports that an Illinois
federal judge granted class-action status to a lawsuit against the
city of Chicago over the police department's stop-and-frisk
policies.
U.S. District Court Judge Andrea Wood orally ruled on Aug. 31 that
the motion for class-action certification was granted, law firms
representing the plaintiffs said in a statement on Sept. 7.
The lawsuit, which was filed in 2015, argued that the Chicago
Police Department (CPD) used the practice to disproportionately
stop and search members of minority groups. It also alleged that
the practice violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
The attorneys say the CPD directed offers to certain neighborhoods
to stop "the right people" and "put your hands on them" without
regard to whether there was a basis to stop them.
In their statement, the attorneys said they filed the suit after it
was revealed that Chicago police officers conducted over 250,000
stops over four months in 2015. These stops were mainly of Black
residents and visitors, and none of them led to arrests.
In her ruling, Wood said that the plaintiffs were able to show that
the city should have known that the program was associated with
"widespread Fourth Amendment violations," noting that data from the
police department showed "a continuing (and worsening) pattern of
unconstitutional stops."
"Moreover, Plaintiffs have adduced evidence that CPD's response to
this problem actually facilitated the coverup of unconstitutional
stops, as evidenced by supervisors providing false information to
officers to give stops the appearance of constitutionality," Woods
wrote.
Antonio Romanucci, one of the plaintiffs in the case, called the
decision a "landmark ruling in the city of Chicago."
"When you see the disparate nature of the stops that overwhelmingly
targeted Black and Hispanic men, and you add up the sheer number of
stops over the years -- well above 2 million -- it is clear to see
how the community trust in police has eroded to where it is today,"
Romanucci said.
The complaint names the city, former Chicago Police Superintendent
Garry McCarthy and numerous individual CPD officers as defendants.
Chicago's Department of Law, which provides legal counsel for the
city, told The Hill "the City does not comment on ongoing
litigation." [GN]
CLARK HILL: Matthew Marshall Secures Summary Judgment in Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew L. Marshall at clarkhill.com reports that San Diego Member
Matthew Marshall recently secured a summary judgment ruling for his
client in a national class action case involving a dietary
supplement that contained an ingredient supplied by his client.
Initially filed in 2016, plaintiffs asserted 13 causes of action,
including fraud, false advertising, and negligent misrepresentation
against Marshall's client, another ingredient supplier, the
manufacturer of the supplement, and a famous television
personality. The plaintiffs alleged that the television show
promoted the two ingredients in question for their weight-loss
properties, and to look certain statements on the labels of the
supplement products that contained the ingredients.
"These types of claims are not atypical and are usually targeted at
the manufacturer, who labels and sells the products, and are based
on the contention that the products are ineffective at what they
purport to do," Marshall said. "In this case, plaintiffs also tried
to rope in our client who merely supplied the ingredient but who
was not responsible for what the manufacturer said on the label
regarding the effectiveness of the product."
When the plaintiffs found and purchased supplements containing
these ingredients, they claimed the products were ineffective and
thus the statements made on the product's label were false and
misleading as they related to the two weight-loss ingredients.
Marshall's client supplies a propriety version of hydroxycitric
acid, which is marketed as an appetite suppressant and is an
extract derived from the tropical fruit garcinia cambogia. However,
the client did not manufacture, sell, label, or advertise the
finished product that contained its ingredient and which was the
subject of the litigation.
A primary allegation against Marshall's client was that it colluded
with the television show to feature the benefits of the garcinia
cambogia ingredient, and, that it further aided and abetted, if not
controlled the content of the labeling on the finished garcinia
cambogia product that the plaintiffs contended that they
purchased.
The court found the show had no relationship with Marshall's client
in regard to the content of the episode of the show that featured
and promoted garcinia cambogia, and that the show or the
personality never received any compensation from the client for
broadcasting this episode. The episode never mentioned the brand
name of the client's proprietary version of the ingredient.
Finally, the episode had aired several months before the client
even began supplying the ingredient to the manufacturer of the
product that the plaintiffs claim they purchased.
The court also found that the undisputed evidence established that
the contract between Marshall's client and the product manufacturer
prevented Marshall's client from having any control over the claims
made on the product label. A trademark licensing agreement
permitted Marshall's client to control the depiction of its
ingredient and logo on the product label, but the ability to
control the content of the labeling of the product and its efficacy
claims remained with the manufacturer. The court relied heavily on
the fact that while Marshall's client later approved of the
portrayal of its trademarked material, it had explicitly noted that
the approval was entirely without responsibility for the content of
the labeling on the product, including the efficacy claims on which
the plaintiffs claimed they relied. The manufacturer admitted that
it had designed the product label on its own and that its research
and development team decided which efficacy claims to place on the
label.
Final Rulings
Among the three plaintiffs named as putative class members, two
were found to have never purchased the garcinia cambogia product in
question, and the third who did purchase the product didn't do so
until eight months after she watched the television show featuring
the ingredient of Marshall's client. In the case involving the
third plaintiff, the court found that Marshall's client exercised
no control over the content of the labeling claims on which the
plaintiff claims she relied. This was confirmed by the terms of the
trademark licensing agreement between the ingredient supplier and
the manufacturer and in later correspondence between the two
entities. [GN]
CLEAR CUT: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Nisbett Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
KAREEM NISBETT, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEAR CUT PHOCUS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-07458-PGG (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 7, 2021) arises from
the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate
its Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people, in
violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its
Website, http://www.drinkphocus.com/,and seeks a permanent
injunction to cause Defendant to change its corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers.
The Defendant is an online retailer of caffeinated and vitamin
enhanced seltzer designed to increase energy and attention without
the deleterious side effects of coffee or energy drinks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10017-6705
Telephone: (212) 392-4772
E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $95MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that shareholders accused Cognizant of failing to
disclose payments made to obtain permits for facilities in 'special
economic zones,' including its Indian headquarters in Chennai,
where it could enjoy tax and other benefits
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp has reached a $95 million
settlement to resolve a lawsuit accusing the information technology
services company of defrauding shareholders by concealing bribes to
officials in India.
A preliminary settlement of the proposed class action was filed on
Sept. 7 with the federal court in Newark, New Jersey, and requires
a judge's approval.
Shareholders accused Cognizant of failing to disclose payments made
to obtain permits for facilities in "special economic zones,"
including its Indian headquarters in Chennai, where it could enjoy
tax and other benefits.
Cognizant's share price fell 13.3% on Sept. 30, 2016, after the
Teaneck, New Jersey-based company said it was looking into bribery
allegations, and whether there were violations of the federal
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
The defendants, including former president Gordon Coburn and former
chief legal officer Steven Schwartz, denied wrongdoing in agreeing
to settle. Cognizant said it expected insurers to cover a
substantial majority of the settlement payment.
In February 2019, Cognizant agreed to pay $25 million to settle a
related U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission civil probe.
U.S. prosecutors also charged Coburn and Schwartz that month with
FCPA and other violations. Those criminal cases remain pending.
Lawyers for Coburn and Schwartz did not immediately respond on
Sept. 8 to requests for comment. [GN]
COLLECTABLE SPORTS: Blind Can't Access Website, Fischler Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FISCHLER, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLLECTABLE SPORTS ASSETS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-05026-LDH-TAM (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2021)
arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired
people, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the
New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights
Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its
Website, www.collectable.com, and seeks a permanent injunction to
cause Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired consumers.
The Defendant is an online platform for fractional investing in
sports memorabilia. Through the Website, customers can buy and sell
shares of high value sports collectables, including signed jerseys,
bats, trading cards, game worn sneakers, and similar items.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10017-6705
Telephone: (212) 392-4772
E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
chris@lipskylowe.com
COLORADO: Faces Medicaid Child Mental Health Care Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Colorado Sun reports that Colorado has lapsed on its obligation
to provide mental health care for needy children, leaving them to
cycle in and out of emergency rooms instead of receiving
appropriate long-term care, according to a federal class-action
lawsuit filed against the state Medicaid program.
The lawsuit so far includes three anonymous plaintiffs, all
teenagers who have for months or years been checked into hospital
emergency rooms and psychiatric facilities but then refused
step-down residential treatment because no beds are available.
The case is similar to major lawsuits filed in other states,
including Illinois, which was forced to revamp its mental health
system for children in a 2018 settlement.
"Colorado needs a comprehensive mental health plan of care for
these children, and there are significant gaps and missing links
that need to be rectified," said Robert Farley, the attorney
handling the Colorado case who also successfully sued Illinois.
"These children have legal rights to get the necessary services."
The three plaintiffs, identified only as A.A, B.B. and C.C., should
have received intensive mental health services in their communities
-- an entitlement under federal law for children on Medicaid
government insurance, according to the lawsuit filed on Sept. 3
that seeks class-action status to represent other children who have
not received needed treatment. The children have been unfairly
"institutionalized," it alleges.
One is a 13-year-old Northglenn boy who has been hospitalized at
Children's Hospital Colorado since March because the state has
refused to pay for a less-restrictive residential treatment center.
The teen, who has reactive attachment disorder and other mental
health issues, remains hospitalized due to the lack of other
options, according to the lawsuit.
Another is a 16-year-old Castle Rock girl who has been in the
emergency department at Children's Hospital hospital since July 31.
The state has been unable to find a long-term residential program,
despite looking out of state, according to the lawsuit. The teen,
who is suicidal and has post-traumatic stress disorder and reactive
attachment disorder, has been admitted to an emergency room 17
times because of her mental health struggles.
The child, who has busted open her head by banging it on the wall
and tied sheets around her neck, has had to rely on emergency
treatment while in crisis instead of receiving long-term care that
would improve her mental health, according to the lawsuit.
The third plaintiff is a 13-year-old Aurora girl diagnosed with
major depression and an anxiety disorder who has been hospitalized
three times. She's living at home but needs to go to a residential
treatment center, which the state has not provided, according to
the lawsuit.
Under federal law, children who qualify for Medicaid are entitled
to receive medically necessary mental health services through a
program called "Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and
Treatment Service." The goal of the lawsuit, which names Colorado
Department of Health Care Policy and Financing Executive Director
Kim Bimestefer, is to force Colorado to build a better spectrum of
care so that children have more options other than emergency
hospitalization, Farley said in an interview with The Colorado
Sun.
The state Department of Health Care Policy and Financing declined
to comment, noting that it is against department policy to discuss
pending litigation.
The lawsuit comes at a pivotal time for Colorado, where suicide is
the leading cause of death for young people and Children's Hospital
Colorado recently sent up a flare for legislative help because its
emergency room is crowded with suicidal and depressed kids and
teens.
About 2,300 children received intensive community-based services
through the state Medicaid department's Children's Extensive
Support Waiver program, but in order to qualify, children must have
an intellectual or developmental disability. Similarly, 163
children received services through the state's Children's
Residential Program, but to qualify, children had to have a
diagnosed intellectual disability. The system is discriminatory,
Farley alleged, when only certain children can qualify for
residential care.
Farley initiated the lawsuit after receiving various calls for help
from families in Colorado, he said. The Illinois lawsuit, filed in
2011 and settled in 2018, was the impetus behind new programs going
into place in 2022 in that state, including a uniform mental health
assessment for children receiving Medicaid. Children in Illinois
will be assigned a mental health care coordinator, who will work
with a handful of kids and teens at a time to make sure they
receive proper care.
"You just can't flip a switch overnight and create a mental health
system for children," Farley said, explaining that any changes
ahead for Colorado are likely to take years.
In many states, mental health treatment for children is so
inadequate that families get to the point that the only safe place
they can find for their child is a psychiatric hospital, he said.
Each time their child is stabilized and released, the options for
step-down programs, such as day treatment or residential centers,
are "slim to none," Farley said, so the child goes home until the
next emergency rush to a psychiatric facility.
The situation gets so dire that some families eventually refuse to
take their children home, which results in the hospital calling
child welfare authorities. Under the custody of the child
protection division, children receive placement in a residential
treatment facility.
"It gets to the point where families become desperate," Farley
said. "They don't see hope. They don't see progress. They get to
the point where we have to do something."
Farley said he knows many kids, not just his 16-year-old Colorado
client, who have had more than a dozen visits to the emergency room
for psychiatric problems. "That's not an unusual situation," he
said. "It's not just somebody falling through the cracks. If you've
had to go to the emergency room 17 times, something is not
working."
In some cases, children are adopted from the foster care system and
have severe mental disorders related to early childhood trauma,
Farley said. Their adoptive parents struggle to get them help,
despite having Medicaid coverage.
Residential programs, which cost about $700 or even $900 per day,
have been shrinking in Colorado, leaving families and the state to
seek beds out of state. Colorado needs to boost its options along
the mental health treatment spectrum, including better
in-home programs and community programs with the aim of keeping
kids out of residential centers and hospitals, Farley said.
In May, Children's Hospital Colorado declared a "pediatric mental
health state of emergency" and said its emergency rooms were
overwhelmed by children in psychiatric crisis. Mental health
emergency room visits were up 90% in April compared with April 2019
and the hospital reported seeing three or four kids each week who
had just attempted suicide.
It's unclear whether Colorado's latest plans to improve mental
health for children will factor into the case.
A year ago, Gov. Jared Polis announced a plan to create a
centralized office for mental health -- called the Behavioral
Health Administration -- to replace the splintered system that
includes 75 programs spread across three state agencies.
The state's suicide prevention office is part of the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment, yet crisis services --
including 24-hour, walk-in services for mental health -- are
overseen by the Colorado Department of Human Services. Substance
abuse programs are housed within the human services department, but
many are funded by state Health Care Policy and Financing.
The change was the recommendation of a 27-member task force of
mental health experts and local government officials. The lawsuit
names only the department of Health Care Policy and Financing,
which houses the Medicaid department.
California and Massachusetts were also ordered to enhance their
mental health programs after lawsuits like the one that spurred
change in Illinois. The Illinois settlement impacted an estimated
30,000 children and hundreds of millions of dollars in new
services. [GN]
CORVIAS GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in Page Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANE PAGE, et al., v.
CORVIAS GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00336-D (E.D.N.C.),
the Hon. Judge James C. Dever III entered an order:
1. granting in part and denying in part the defendants'
motions to dismiss;
2. denying the defendants' motion to strike;
3. granting the plaintiffs' motion for judicial notice; and
4. granting the plaintiffs' motion to supplement the record.
The Court said, "Defendants move to strike plaintiffs' class
allegations. A motion to strike a complaint's class allegations
under Rule 12(f) should be granted when it is clear from the face
of the complaint that the plaintiff cannot meet Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23's requirements for certification because the
plaintiff has failed to properly allege facts sufficient to make
out a class.
Generally, however, courts do not strike class allegations at the
pleadings stage but instead allow for pre-certification discovery
before making a certification decision under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(c)(1).
On August 31, 2020, Staff Sergeant Shane Page and Brittany Page,
Specialist Spenser Ganske and Emily Ganske, Sergeant First Class
Christopher Wilkes and Ashley Wilkes, and Corporal Timothy Murphy
and Katelyn Murphy filed an amended class action complaint against
the defendants.
The Plaintiffs allege claims under North Carolina law for breach of
contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, negligence, temporary recurrent private nuisance,
violations of the North Carolina Residential Rental Agreements Act,
and (6) violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nCT9Py at no extra charge.[CC]
CRST INT'L: Markson Suit Seeks to Certify Class and Subclass
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CURTIS MARKSON, MARK
MCGEORGE, CLOIS MCCLENDON, and ERIC CLARK, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CRST INTERNATIONAL,
INC., CRST EXPEDITED, INC., C.R. ENGLAND, INC., WESTERN EXPRESS,
INC., SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC., SOUTHERN REFRIGERATED
TRANSPORT, INC., COVENANT TRANSPORT, INC., PASCHALL TRUCK LINES,
INC., STEVENS TRANSPORT, INC., and DOES 1-10, Case No.
5:17-cv-01261-SB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for certifying a class regarding plaintiffs' Sherman Act
claim defined as follows:
"All current or former drivers "under contract" as motor
vehicle carrier drivers employed by defendants CRST
International, Inc., CRST Expedited, Inc., C.R. England,
Inc., or Stevens Transport, Inc. during the Class Period (the
"Antitrust Class")."
The Plaintiffs further move for an order certifying a subclass for
purposes of plaintiffs' Cartwright Act claim comprised of:
"all class members that resided in the state of California at
any time while "under contract" with one of the defendants
during the Class Period (the "California Antitrust
Subclass").
The term "under contract" is defined to mean all current and former
drivers who executed an agreement with defendants to work for any
of the defendants for a specified period of time in return for
training provided by, funded by, or reimbursed by that defendant.
The "Class Period" refers to the period: (a) from May 15, 2013 to
the date of the Court's class certification order for class members
employed by CRST International, Inc., CRST Expedited, Inc., or C.R.
England, Inc.; and (b) from April 15, 2015 to the date of the
Court's class certification order for class members 24 employed by
Stevens Transport, Inc.
Excluded from the Class and Subclass are officers, directors,
senior executives and personnel in the human resources or
recruiting departments of the Defendants; and any and all judges
and justices, and chambers' staff, assigned to hear or adjudicate
any aspect of this litigation.
The Plaintiffs also move the Court to appoint them as class
representatives for the Antitrust Class and the California
Antitrust Subclass.
The Plaintiffs further move the Court to appoint Susman Godfrey
L.L.P., Mayall Hurley P.C., Ackermann and Tilajef, P.C., and Melmed
Law Group P.C. as class counsel for the Antitrust Class and the
California Antitrust Subclass.
CRST is an American freight company based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
Founded in 1955 by Herald and Miriam Smith, it is a privately held
company with a current fleet of about 4,500 trucks and annual
revenues of $1.5 billion.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 13,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ak7kwl
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq.
Rohit D. Nath, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
kpachman@susmangodfrey.com
rnath@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Matthew R. Berry, Esq.
Ian M. Gore, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 516-3880
E-mail: mberry@susmangodfrey.com
igore@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
William J. Gorham, Esq.
Nicholas J. Scardigli, Esq.
Vladimir J. Kozina, Esq.
MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
Stockton, California 95207
Telephone: (209) 477-3833
E-mail: rwasserman@mayallaw.com
wgorham@mayallaw.com
nscardigli@mayallaw.com
vjkozina@mayallaw.com
- and -
Johnathan Melmed, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
Los Angeles, California 90035
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
- and -
Craig J. Ackerman, Esq.
ACKERMANN AND TILAJEF, P.C.
1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
Los Angeles, CA 90035
Telephone: (310) 277-0614
E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Tarrify Appeals Class Certification Bid Denial
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Tarrify Properties, LLC filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit captioned as TARRIFY PROPERTIES, LLC,
et al., v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY, Case No. 1:19-cv-02293-JG, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
Tarrify sued the Defendant Cuyahoga County on October 31, 2019,
claiming that Cuyahoga County violated the Fifth Amendment's
Takings Clause by seizing Tarrify's Cleveland property without
compensating Tarrify for any value above Tarrify's $35,000 property
tax debt.
On July 8, 2020, the Plaintiff moved to certify a class of:
"Cuyahoga County residents whose property the County has seized to
satisfy County property tax debts where those tax debts were less
than the seized property's value."
On December 21, 2020, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' class
certification motion, finding, as many Courts have, that tax
valuations are inadmissible to show fair market property value for
non-tax purposes.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this ruling.
The appellate case is captioned as Tarrify Properties, LLC, et al.
v. Cuyahoga County, OH, Case No. 21-3801, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on Sept. 8,
2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant TARRIFY PROPERTIES, LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
THE DANN LAW FIRM
15000 Madison Avenue
Lakewood, OH 44107
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
E-mail: mdann@dannlaw.com
Defendant-Appellee CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH is represented by:
Emily K. Anglewicz, Esq.
Stephen W. Funk, Esq.
ROETZEL & ANDRESS
222 S. Main Street, Suite 400
Akron, OH 44319
Telephone: (330) 376-2700
E-mail: eanglewicz@ralaw.com
sfunk@ralaw.com
- and -
Adam D. Jutte, Esq.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE
310 W. Lakeside Avenue, Suite 300
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 443-8146
E-mail: ajutte@prosecutor.cuyahogacounty.us
- and -
David G. Lambert, Esq.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE
1200 Ontario Street, Eighth Floor
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 443-5869
E-mail: dlambert@prosecutor.cuyahogacounty.us
DIDI GLOBAL: Faces Hechler Suit Over Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------
CORY HECHLER; individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIDI GLOBAL INC. F/K/A XIAOJU KUAIZHI INC.;
WILL WEI CHENG; ALAN YUE ZHUO; JEAN QING LIU; STEPHEN JINGSHI ZHU;
ZHIYI CHEN; MARTIN CHI PING LAU; KENTARO MATSUI; ADRIAN PERICA;
DANIEL YONG ZHANG; GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C.; MORGAN STANLEY &
CO. LLC; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; BOFA SECURITIES; INC.;
BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; CHINA RENAISSANCE SECURITIES (HONG KONG)
LIMITED; CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION HONG KONG
SECURITIES LIMITED; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; GUOTAI JUNAN
SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LIMITED; HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC.; UBS
SECURITIES LLC; BOCCI ASIA LIMITED; BOCOM INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES
LIMITED; CCB INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL LIMITED; CLSA LIMITED; CMB
INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL LIMITED; FUTU INC.; ICBC INTERNATIONAL
SECURITIES LIMITED; MIZUHO SECURITIES USA LLC; and TIGER BROKERS
(NZ) LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-07550 (S.D.N.Y., Sept.
9, 2021) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired DiDi: (a) American Depositary
Shares ("ADSs" or "shares") pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's
June 2021 initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering") and (b)
securities between June 30, 2021 and July 2, 2021, inclusive,
seeking to pursue claims against the Defendants in accordance with
the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").
According to the complaint, on June 30, 2021, the Company filed its
prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC, which was incorporated into
the Registration Statement. In its IPO, the Company sold
approximately 316,800,000 shares priced at $14 per share. Four (4)
ADSs represent one (1) DiDi Class A ordinary share. The Company was
paid approximately $4,331.6 million for the shares after
underwriting discounts and commissions.
On Sunday, July 5, 2021, The Wall Street Journal published its
report that three months prior to the IPO the CAC advised DiDi to
postpone its IPO due to PRC security concerns. On Monday, July 6,
2021, the market price of DiDi shares plummeted $3.04 per share, or
19.6%, to close at $12.49 per share on July 6, 2021, on heavy
trading volume of 225.5 million shares. The market price of DiDi
shares has never recovered. As of August 19, 2021, the price of
DiDi shares had fallen to $7.43, about 47% below the $14.00 IPO
price.
Allegedly, the Registration Statement was materially false and
misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts. Throughout
the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that DiDi's apps did not comply with applicable laws
and regulations governing privacy protection and the collection of
personal information within the PRC; (2) that prior to the IPO DiDi
was advised by the CAC to postpone its IPO because of its
collection and storage of personal information of its users in
violation of PRC law; (3) that enforcement of PRC law would have a
material adverse effect on its financial results and operations
going forward; and (4) Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
DIDI GLOBAL INC. provides mobility solutions, cloud computing, and
other application based services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER &
GRAIFMAN, P.C.
747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
Telephone: (845) 356-2570
Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com
ggraifman@kgglaw.com
DISCOUNT POWER: Abramson Files TCPA Suit in D. Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Discount Power, Inc.
The case is styled as Stewart Abramson, individually and on behalf
of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v.
Discount Power, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-01223-VAB (D. Conn., Sept.
14, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Discount Power, Inc. -- https://discountpower.com/ -- offers
residential, commercial, industrial and municipal customers with a
comprehensive suite of electric energy alternatives.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (615) 485-0018
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
EAST COAST MOVING: Faces Douglas Suit Over Laborers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seron Douglas, and Gilbert Augustin, Jr., on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective
Action, Plaintiffs v. East Coast Moving Inc., Extreme Van Line
Inc., and Edna Seltzer, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05033
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2021) seeks injunctive and declaratory relief
and to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, unpaid
spread-of-hours, unlawfully deducted wages, liquidated and
statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
York Labor Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act.
Mr. Douglas was employed as a mover and manual laborer at the
Defendants' moving company from May 18, 2021 through and including
September 31, 2021.
The Corporate Defendants are moving companies based in Queens, New
York. Ms. Seltzer is the owner, officer and/or agent of the
Corporate Defendants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Snyder Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters
----------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER SNYDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC d/b/a ERC,
Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-07417 (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2021)
brings this class action complaint against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sent a collection letter
to him on or about July 29, 2021 in an attempt to collect an
alleged debt incurred to the creditor, TD Bank USA, N.A./Nordstrom,
Inc. He claims that the Defendant's letter confused him because it
failed to accurately inform him that the amount of the debt stated
in the Letter will increase over time, thus misstating the total
amount and character of debt owed. In addition, the Defendant did
not offer him a settlement offer and confirmed there was "no
payment arrangement currently on file." The Defendant also failed
to clearly state that the holder of the debt will accept payment in
the amount set forth in full satisfaction of the debt if payment is
made by a specified date, the Plaintiff added.
As a result of the Defendant's alleged deceptive, misleading and
unfair debt collection practices, the Plaintiff incurred an
informational injury. Thus, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks statutory and
actual damages, litigation costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the
Court may deem just and proper.
Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC d/b/a ERC is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tamir Saland, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 122
Fax: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com
FABFITFUN INC: Settles Suit for $625K for Alleged Security Failures
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FabFitFun, a fashion and beauty subscription service, settled
claims that it failed to adequately protect and secure consumer
data resulting in a data breach for a sum of $625,000 in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. In addition
to agreeing to the monetary settlement, FabFitFun agreed to
implement security measures, including engaging a third-party
cybersecurity forensic vendor to conduct a risk assessment, offer
multi-factor authentication for customers to access their accounts,
and hire additional security and technical personnel to assist in
building a more robust data privacy and security program for the
company.
Plaintiff Cheryl Gaston sued FabFitFun in October 2020, alleging
that the company failed to protect its customers' data against
hacker data scraping that compromised payment card information.
The settlement class includes 441,000 consumers; the deadline for
individuals to opt-out of the settlement was June 16, 2021. To
date, the claims administrator has not received any objections and
only five (5) opt-out requests.[GN]
FARMERS GROUP: Faces Stallone Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
RONALD STALLONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARMERS INSURANCE
EXCHANGE, and TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-01659 (D. Nev., Sept. 8, 2021) alleges that the Defendants
failed to employ reasonable and appropriate measures to protect
against unauthorized access to the Plaintiff's and the Class
Members' personal information.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, between January 20,
2021, and February 12, 2021, "unknown malicious actors targeted the
Farmers Auto quoting system to obtain various individuals' personal
information." The Defendants state they are still investigating
"exactly how this occurred." But, at a minimum, between at least
January 20, 2021, and February 12, 2021, the Plaintiff's and Class
Members' driver's license numbers were stolen by malicious actors,
says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged failure to provide
reasonable and adequate data security, the Plaintiff's and the
Class Members' personal information has been exposed to, and stolen
by, those who should not have access to it. The Plaintiff and the
Class are now at much higher risk of identity theft and for
cybercrimes of all kinds, especially considering the highly
valuable and sought–after PI stolen here.
Farmers Group, Inc. operates as an insurance management and holding
company. The Company manages an auto and home insurer, and a
property and casualty insurance group. Farmers is also a commercial
insurer and operates a life insurance subsidiary. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Kind, Esq.
KIND LAW FIRM
8860 S. Maryland Parkway, Suite 106
Las Vegas, NV 89123
Telephone: (702) 337-2322
Facsimile: (702) 329-5881
E-mail: Mk@kindlaw.com
-and-
Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
gmb@cglaw.com
CASEY GERRY SCHENK
FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
110 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1811
Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
FCA US: Bledsoe Seeks Certification of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES BLEDSOE, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FCA
US LLC, a Delaware corporation, and CUMMINS INC., an Indiana
corporation, Case No. 4:16-cv-14024-TGB-RSW (E.D. Mich), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. granting class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a)(1)-(4) and (b)(3) on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated; and
2. appointing their Counsel Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP;
The Miller Law Firm P.C.; Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein,
Brody & Agnello, P.C.; and Seeger Weiss LLP as Class
Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).
3. appointing them as Class Representatives pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(g).
Specifically, the Plaintiffs propose certification of the following
Classes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3):
-- Nationwide Class (RICO and breach of contract claims):
"All persons whopurchased a Class Vehicle in the United
States from an FCA-authorized dealer or distributor";
-- California Class (consumer protection and fraudulent
concealment claims)
"All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an FCA-
authorized dealer or distributor in California;"
-- Idaho Class (consumer protection and fraudulent
concealment claims)
"All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an FCA-
authorized dealer or distributor in Idaho;"
-- Illinois Class (consumer protection and fraudulent
concealment claims)
"All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an FCA-
authorized dealer or distributor in Illinois;"
-- Michigan Class (consumer protection and fraudulent
concealment claims
"All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an FCA-
authorized dealer or distributor in Michigan;"
-- New Mexico Class (consumer protection and fraudulent
concealment claims)
"All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an FCA-
authorized dealer or distributor in New Mexico;"
-- North Carolina Class (consumer protection and fraudulent
concealment claims)
"All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an FCA-
authorized dealer or distributor in North Carolina;"
-- South Carolina Class (fraudulent concealment claim)
"All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an FCA-
authorized dealer or distributor in South Carolina;" and
-- Texas Class (consumer protection and fraudulent
concealment claims)
"All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an FCA-
authorized dealer or distributor in Texas."
The Plaintiffs are James Bledsoe, Michael Erben, Dawn Roberts, Marc
Ganz, Marty Witberg, Martin Ward, Jeremy Perdue, James Forshaw, and
Paul Chouffet.
FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans,
trucks and commercial van.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39beXJz at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
jerrodp@hbsslaw.com
- and -
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Jr., Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
ssa@millerlawpc.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
77 Water Street
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 584-0700
E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
- and -
Paul J. Geller, Esq.
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
FIAT CHRYSLER: Class Action Over Dodge Hood Scoop Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Dodge
class action lawsuit has been dismissed after the plaintiff didn't
adequately plead the hood scoop was defective on 2018 Challenger
SRT Demons.
California plaintiff Brian Garlough purchased a 2018 Dodge
Challenger SRT Demon in July 2018, and one of the features of the
car is the 45-square-inch Air Grabber hood scoop.
The Dodge class action lawsuit alleges Fiat Chrysler (FCA US) knew
about the alleged hood scoop problems but concealed it from
customers. By concealing the alleged hood scoop defects, Chrysler
could continue to market and sell the expensive cars.
According to the Dodge lawsuit, the hood scoop expands, contracts,
warps and vibrates when the car is in motion. This allegedly chips,
scrapes and cracks the original factory paint, causing damage to
the car's hood.
The Dodge class action lawsuit had already been partly dismissed,
but the judge allowed the plaintiff to file a third amended lawsuit
over the Demon hood scoops.
Dodge Class Acttion Lawsuit Dismissed
The plaintiff alleges FCA's advertisements said the hood scoop was
the largest functional cold air intake hood. But the plaintiff
contends this advertisement was false as the Demon hood scoop
expands, contracts, warps and vibrates. This allegedly causes paint
problems and damage which makes the hood scoop non-functional.
But according to Judge John A. Mendez, "FCA's statements regarding
the hood's general functionality are the kind of generalized,
vague, and unspecific assertions that constitute non-actionable
puffery."
Under California law, statements that constitute mere puffery
cannot be the basis for a fraud or negligent misrepresentation
claim.
As for damage to the paint, the judge says the plaintiff alleges a
cosmetic issue with the hood and doesn't allege the defect renders
the Dodge Demons incapable of use. Additionally, the judge says the
plaintiff doesn't allege the damaged hoods cause an unreasonable
safety hazard.
"Because Plaintiff has alleged a cosmetic issue with the hood that
does not render the car incapable of use or cause an unreasonable
safety hazard, FCA had no duty to disclose the issue with the hood
scoop." -- Judge Mendez
In dismissing the Dodge class action lawsuit, the judge says the
dismissal is with prejudice because the plaintiff has had three
chances to amend the lawsuit.
A similar lawsuit also alleged defects in the Dodge hoods, but the
case (Peralta, v. FCA US LLC) was dismissed when the plaintiff
didn't file a response to FCA's motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
The Dodge class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California: Garlough, et al., FCA US
LLC.
The plaintiff is represented by the Law Offices of Connor W. Olson.
[GN]
FILLMORE AND 5TH: Downing Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fillmore and 5th
Designer Consignment Inc., et al. The case is styled as Meghan
Downing, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fillmore and 5th Designer Consignment Inc., a
California corporation; Does 1 to 10 inclusive; Case No.
2:21-cv-07116-JFW-JPR (C.D. Cal., Sept. 2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Fillmore & 5th consignment boutique -- https://www.fillmore5th.com/
-- specializes in highly coveted clothing and accessories for women
at a fraction of the original retail price.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email: binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com
jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
FIVE9 INC: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Lawrence Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD LAWRENCE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIVE9, INC.; MICHAEL BURDIEK;
DAVID DEWALT; SUSAN BARSAMIAN; JACK ACOSTA; ROWAN TROLLOPE; DAVID
WELSH; KIMBERLY ALEXY; MICHAEL BURKLAND; ROBERT ZOLLARS; and ANA
PINCZUK, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-07002 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 9,
2021) is an action brought by the Plaintiff against Five9, Inc.
("Five9" or the "Company") and the members of Five9's Board of
Directors (the "Board" or the "Individual Defendants") for their
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), and to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant
to which Five9 will be acquired by Zoom Video Communications, Inc.
("Zoom") through Zoom's subsidiary Summer Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger
Sub") (the "Proposed Transaction").
According to the complaint, on July 18, 2021, Zoom and Five9 issued
a joint press release announcing that they had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated July 16, 2021 (the "Merger
Agreement") to acquire Five9. Under the terms of the Merger
Agreement, each Five9 stockholder will receive 0.5533 shares of
Zoom Class A common stock for each share of Five9 common stock they
own (the "Merger Consideration"). The Proposed Transaction is
valued at approximately $14.7 billion.
On August 26, 2021, Five9 filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the SEC. The Proxy
Statement, which recommends that Five9 stockholders vote in favor
of the Proposed Transaction, allegedly omits or misrepresents
material information concerning, among other things: (i) the
Company's financial projections; (ii) the data and inputs
underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the
fairness opinion provided by the Company's financial advisor,
Qatalyst Partners LP ("Qatalyst Partners"); and (iii) Qatalyst
Partners' potential conflicts of interest. Defendants authorized
the issuance of the false and misleading Proxy Statement in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Unless remedied, Five9's public stockholders will be irreparably
harmed because the Proxy Statement's material misrepresentations
and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed
voting decision on the Proposed Transaction.
Five9, Inc. provides cloud contact center software. The Company
offers real-time and historical reporting, recording, quality
monitoring, workforce, and customer relationship management
integrations. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
9100 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 725 E.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com
-and-
Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 682-3025
Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
FRUIT FUSION: State Automobile Files Suit in S.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fruit Fusion, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as State Automobile Mutual Insurance
Company, State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company v. Fruit Fusion,
Inc., an Illinois corporation; Taylor Patt, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No. 3:21-cv-01132
(S.D. Ill., Sept. 14, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.
Fruit Fusion, Inc. is an Illinois corporation located in
Belleville, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert M. Chemers, Esq.
PRETZEL & STOUFFER, CHARTERED
One South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 578-7548
Fax: (312) 346-8242
Email: rchemers@pretzelstouffer.com
GENERAC POWER: Zimmer Files Suit in E.D. Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Generac Power
Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Zimmer, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated within the State of
Louisiana v. Generac Power Systems, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-01659-SM-DPC (E.D. La., Sept. 2, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Product Liability.
Generac Holdings Inc., commonly referred to as Generac --
https://www.generac.com/ -- is a Fortune 1000 American manufacturer
of backup power generation products for residential, light
commercial and industrial markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Preston Lee Hayes, Esq.
Barry W Sartin , Jr, Esq.
Ryan Paul Monsour, Esq.
HMS, LLC
3850 N. Causeway Blvd, Suite 590
Metairie, LA 70002
Phone: (504) 356-0110
Fax: (504) 356-0112
Email: plh@hmsfirm.com
bws@hmsfirm.com
rpm@hmsfirm.com
- and -
David Winston Ardoin, Esq.
ARDOIN, McKOWEN & ORY, LLC
114 Laura Dr., Suite D
Thibodaux, LA 70301
Phone: (985) 446-3333
Email: david@amotriallawyers.com
- and -
Zachary Rhys Smith, Esq.
404 E Gibson St., Ste. 2b
Covington, LA 70433
Phone: (985) 705-1143
Fax: (504) 356-0110
Email: zrs@hmsfirm.com
GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Diaz Must File Class Cert Bid by Jan. 27, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID DIAZ, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, V. GEORGIA-PACIFIC
CORRUGATED LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02151-MCS-KS (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Marc C. Scarsi entered an order on the schedule of class
certification dates as follows:
Class Certification Date
-- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off April 8, 2022
-- Expert Disclosure (Initial) March 10, 2022
-- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal) April 8, 2022
-- Expert Discovery Cut-Off May 9, 2022
-- Deadline to File a Motion
for Class Certification January 27, 2022
-- Deadline to File an Opposition February 17, 2022
to the Motion for Class
Certification
-- Deadline to File a Reply March 10, 2022
-- Hearing Date on Motion for March 28, 2022
For class actions, the Court will first set class certification
dates and discovery dates. The Court will defer setting any other
dates until class certification is resolved. Absent extraordinary
circumstances, the Court will not bifurcate class discovery from
merits discovery The Court orders the parties to make every effort
to agree on dates, says Judge Scarsi.
Georgia-Pacific is a corrugated box manufacturer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XyWIvm at no extra charge.[CC]
GHRAY AREA: Faces Devivo Suit Over Illegal Sales Calls
------------------------------------------------------
COLLEEN DEVIVO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GHRAY AREA HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a GRANTS FOR
HOMEOWNERS, Defendant, Case No. CACE-21-016931 (Fla. Cir. Ct.,
Broward Cty., Sept. 7, 2021) arises from the Defendant's violation
of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act as it engages in
telephonic sales calls to consumers including Plaintiff without
having secured prior express written consent.
According to the complaint, on August 6, 2021, the Defendant sent
telephonic sales call to Plaintiffs cellular telephone number to
solicit the sale of consumer goods and/or services. Allegedly,
these telephonic sales calls caused Plaintiff and the Class members
harm, including statutory damages, inconvenience, invasion of
privacy, aggravation, annoyance.
Ghray Area Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Grants for Homeowners, is an
online homeowner grant database.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
Garrett 0. Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave, Ste. 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
GOHEALTH LLC: Shortchanges Workers' Overtime Pay, Jordan Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Jordan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GoHealth, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-04736 (N.D. Ill., September 3, 2021), seeks to recover
compensation for overtime wages, an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, interest and reasonable attorney's fees and
costs of this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
GoHealth is a health insurance marketplace and Medicare-focused
digital health company. Jordan performed work and was employed at
GoHealth's offices and facilities as a Customer Service
Representative or Member Services Agent from approximately February
1, 2019 to the present. She claims that GoHealth paid her only one
and one-half times her base hourly wage as overtime compensation
and GoHealth did not include her nondiscretionary bonus pay as part
of her regular rate of pay for the purpose of computing overtime.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
P.O. Box 97066
Phoenix, AZ 85060
Telephone: (480) 382-5176, (216) 395-4226
Email: cliff@bswages.com
GOLD COAST: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gold Coast Creations,
Inc. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Gold Coast Creations,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-07690 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gold Coast Creations Inc. is located in Roslyn, New York and is
part of the Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers
Industry.[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
GOOD SAMARITAN: Wins Summary Judgment in Frank Malpractice Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Jahmir Christopher Frank, Plaintiff v. The Good
Samaritan Hospital of Cincinnati, Ohio, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-00618 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Michael R. Barrett of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division,
issued an Opinion and Order:
a. sustaining the Defendant's Motion to Strike Dr. Jennifer
Jones Hollings and Dr. Michael Katz as Plaintiff's Expert
Witnesses, which the Judge construes as objections to the
Plaintiff's evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2); and
b. granting the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Background
Plaintiff Frank was born at Defendant Good Samaritan on July 30,
1998. The Plaintiff suffers from periventricular leukomalacia
("PVL"), a permanent and debilitating brain injury that he
attributes to trauma in utero during his delivery. His "Medical
Malpractice Complaint with Class Allegations for Negligent
Destruction of Medical Records" set forth three causes of action:
medical malpractice, respondeat superior, and negligence,
specifically the negligent destruction of medical records.
The Court granted the Hospital's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
negligence cause of action on Dec. 9, 2019. And because the
Plaintiff's class action allegations were supported solely by the
dismissed negligence cause of action, the Court denied the
Plaintiff's pending motion for class certification on Dec. 17,
2019.
The Court also denied the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary
judgment against the Hospital on the issue of liability on April 8,
2020. In support of his motion, Plaintiff offered the opinion
testimony of Augustus G. Parker III, M.D., a practicing physician
in the field of obstetrics and gynecology, who stated, "It is not
possible to render a standard of care opinion without reviewing
either the birth records of the delivery, fetal monitoring strips,
or both." Because he played no role in the destruction of his
medical records, and because his expert testified that a standard
of care opinion could not be rendered without them, the Plaintiff
argued that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the
issue of liability. That is, he asked the Court for judgment as a
matter of law that the Hospital violated the applicable standard of
care during his birth, causing his brain injury, leaving only
damages to be decided by a jury.
The Court concluded that this relief was inappropriate. A
spoliation sanction was not warranted because the Plaintiff failed
to establish either that the Hospital had an obligation to preserve
his medical records or a culpable state of mind. And because the
Plaintiff offered no proof of intent, a sanction under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 37(e) was not warranted either.
Remaining for resolution is the Plaintiff's individual medical
malpractice claim against the Hospital.
In compliance with the Court's April 17, 2020 Amended Calendar
Order, the Plaintiff disclosed four experts on May 29, 2020:
Jennifer Jones Hollings, M.D. (standard of care); Michael D. Katz,
M.D. (causation); William T. Baldwin, Jr., Ph.D. (economist
regarding damages); and Sharon Brown Lane, MRC, CRC, QRC
(vocational rehabilitation consultant regarding employability). Dr.
Parker, whose testimony Plaintiff offered for the proposition that
it was "not possible" to render a standard of care opinion, was not
disclosed as an expert. On June 3, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an
updated report from Dr. Katz.
The Hospital disclosed three experts on Aug. 19, 2020 and filed
their affidavits in support of its pending summary judgment motion:
Alan Bedrick, M.D. (causation); Elias Chalhub, M.D. (causation);
and Harry Franklin Farb, M.D. (standard of care/causation).
As noted, the Hospital moves to strike Drs. Hollings and Katz as
the Plaintiff's expert witnesses.
Law & Analysis
I. Motion to Strike
A. Jennifer Jones Hollings, M.D.
The Hospital argues that Dr. Hollings is not competent to provide
an expert medical opinion because she does not satisfy the "active
clinical practice" requirement set forth in Ohio Evid. R.
601(B)(5)(b). It also argues that Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), preclude
admission of her opinion because it is unreliable. Hence, the
Hospital moves to strike Dr. Hollings as an expert witness and, in
turn, Dr. Katz, because Dr. Katz bases his revised opinion on the
opinion of Dr. Hollings. The Hospital additionally maintains that
Dr. Katz is not qualified to testify under Rule 702 because both
his original and revised opinions are speculative.
Alternatively, the Hospital "seeks relief" under Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c)(2), asking that the Plaintiff be prohibited from using Dr.
Hollings's deposition testimony and the expert reports of Drs.
Hollings and Katz in response to its summary judgment motion.
Dr. Hollings graduated from the Howard University College of
Medicine in 2002, finished her residency at the George Washington
University School of Medicine and Health Sciences in 2006, and
first became board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology in 2007.
She is a general obstetrician/gynecologist ("OB/GYN") and has never
practiced in the subspecialties of maternal-fetal medicine,
neonatology, or pediatric neurology. She has never diagnosed PVL.
Dr. Hollings currently is employed as a Physician Clinical Reviewer
for Magellan Health Care, where she has been working since October
2018. She has also been employed as a Peer Reviewer/Quality
Reviewer for Keystone Peer Review Organization ("KEPRO") since
October 2012. Neither Magellan nor KEPRO provide direct medical
services. In her role with Magellan, Dr. Hollings "makes sure that
the examinations that are ordered and provided to the patients are
-- make clinical sense."
Dr. Hollings estimates that 20% of her consultations involve
obstetrics and gynecology "versus other subspecialties." Her work
for KEPRO, which she describes as "intermittent," is
"retrospective" review of obstetrics cases involving hospital
admissions "that may potentially reach lawsuit status."
Judge Barrett opines that Dr. Hollings's current work for Magellan
does not constitute active clinical practice. She does not examine
or diagnose patients, order tests, or develop treatment plans. Nor
does she supervise physicians who are providing direct patient
care. Dr. Hollings's work is not an "essential link" in the "chain
of services" that constitutes the "comprehensive treatment" of
patients. And, even if it were, only 20% of her consultations
involve obstetrics and gynecology, far below the required "at least
one-half" in her "field of licensure.
In addition, Judge Barrett finds that it is the first case in which
Dr. Hollings has offered her opinion as an expert, so she is not a
professional witness in the "hired gun" sense. Although mindful of
this purpose behind Ohio Evid. R. 601(B)(5)(b), the Judge must base
its decision on whether Dr. Hollings actually treats patients at
the present time. Because she does not, Dr. Hollings is not
competent to testify as an expert in the case.
The Plaintiff alternately contends that Dr. Hollings' prior years
of practice satisfy the active clinical practice requirement. Judge
Barrett finds otherwise. Dr. Hollings did not begin medical school
until after the alleged malpractice occurred and she disengaged
from active clinical practice before Plaintiff filed suit in the
Southern District of Ohio. Further, no scheduling delays are
attributable to the Hospital.
Having determined that Dr. Hollings is not competent to testify as
an expert under Ohio substantive law, Judge Barrett need not decide
whether her opinion as to the standard of care is given with a
reasonable degree of scientific certainty. Nor is a Daubert
analysis necessary. The Hospital's Rule 56(c)(2) objection to her
testimony is sustained. The Plaintiff may not offer Dr. Hollings'
deposition testimony or expert report in opposition to the
Hospital's summary judgment motion.
B. Michael D. Katz, M.D.
Judge Barrett also holds that Dr. Katz is not qualified to testify
under Fed. R. Evid. 702. Dr. Katz is a pediatric neurologist. His
opinions are limited to causation. The Hospital does not challenge
Dr. Katz's competency under Ohio Evid. R. 601(B)(5)(b), but instead
disputes his qualification to testify as an expert under Fed. R.
Evid. 702.
Dr. Katz was deposed in the state court litigation on March 12,
2018. At that time, he testified that "most of the children that
have PVL have it before 33 weeks' gestation." PVL is also seen in
mature (or full-term) infants with ischemic cardiac injuries.
Despite the Plaintiff's mother's testimony that her son was born at
38 weeks,9 Dr. Katz questioned whether the Plaintiff may have been
"more premature than we know." But he conceded -- in the absence of
medical records to review -- that he had no opinion as to whether
labor and delivery had "any relationship" to the Plaintiff's PVL.
Judge Barrett agrees with the Hospital that Dr. Katz's March 2018
opinion is speculative and therefore unreliable. The Judge holds
that Dr. Katz' "working backwards" conjecture that the Plaintiff
was premature rather than full-term finds no support in the record.
And his testimony was riddled with possibilities rather than
probabilities because he had no medical records to review.
Because he relies "particularly" on Dr. Hollings for his opinion on
causation, and because Judge Barrett has found Dr. Hollings to be
incompetent to testify as an expert witness, Dr. Katz's opinion is
not "the product of reliable principles and methods." It, too, must
be excluded.
II. Motion for Summary Judgment
Judge Barrett finds that the Hospital is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Under Ohio law, a medical malpractice claim must
satisfy four elements. A plaintiff must prove 1) the existence of a
duty owed by defendant to plaintiff; 2) a breach of duty by
defendant; 3) causation based on probability; and 4) damages. The
Hospital moves for summary judgment on the Plaintiff's medical
malpractice claim, arguing that he cannot satisfy the second and
third elements.
At various points in the state court litigation and here in the
Southern District of Ohio, the Plaintiff offered the May 17, 2018
expert testimony of Dr. Parker for the proposition that it was "not
possible" to render a standard of care opinion. The Court has since
determined that the Plaintiff's second standard of care witness,
Dr. Hollings, is incompetent to testify under Ohio substantive law.
Thus, the only standard of care evidence properly before the Court
is the expert testimony of Harry Franklin Farb, M.D., an
obstetrician who also practices in the subspecialty of
maternal-fetal medicine. The Hospital's expert Dr. Farb opines,
"based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that in spite
of the fact there are no medical records associated with this
delivery, based upon the birth video and the birth photos, there is
no reason to suspect that a deviation from the standard of care
occurred in this case."
Judge Barrett also has determined that the Plaintiff's causation
witness, Dr. Katz, is not qualified to testify under the federal
rules of evidence. As to causation, the Hospital's expert Dr. Farb
further opines, "based upon a reasonable degree of medical
certainty that Jahmir Frank's brain injury is completely unrelated
to the provision of medical/obstetric/nursing services provided at
the time of labor and delivery." Other causation evidence properly
before the Court is the expert testimony of Alan Bedrick, M.D., a
neonatologist.
Because the Plaintiff has not produced a competent expert who will
offer an admissible opinion at trial that the Hospital breached the
applicable standard of care during the Plaintiff's delivery --
rendering unopposed Dr. Farb's opinion that the standard of care
was not breached -- there is no genuine dispute as to the second
element that the Plaintiff is required to prove. And because the
Plaintiff has not produced a competent expert who will offer an
admissible opinion at trial that any alleged deviation from the
standard of care actually caused the Plaintiff's brain injury --
rendering unopposed the opinions of Drs. Farb, Bedrick, and Chalhub
that Plaintiff's brain injury is unrelated to his delivery -- there
is no genuine dispute as to the third element that the Plaintiff is
required to prove. Accordingly, the Hospital is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law as to the Plaintiff's medical
malpractice claim.
Conclusion
To summarize, Judge Barrett construes the Defendant's Motion to
Strike Dr. Jennifer Jones Hollings and Dr. Michael Katz as the
Plaintiff's Expert Witnesses as objections to the Plaintiff's
evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2) and those objections are
sustained. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore
granted. The Clerk will terminate the civil action from the docket
of the Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 3, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/echduyas from Leagle.com.
GOOGLE LLC: Ill. Federal Court Affirms Biometric Class Action Stay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie A. Prescott, Esq., of Mintz, in an article for The National
Law Review, reports that a federal court in Illinois agreed with
Google that a biometric privacy lawsuit filed against it in the
Northern District of Illinois should be stayed in favor of a
similar pending state court case. Although it is not uncommon for
plaintiffs' firms to file nearly duplicative lawsuits in state and
federal courts, it is not always a guarantee that such lawsuits
will be automatically stayed. Before a stay order can be obtained,
the defendant typically must still engage in costly (and sometimes
lengthy) motion practice. And at least some courts still allow the
later-filed action to proceed, on various grounds.
This time, the district court made it clear that such duplicative
actions should not be allowed, as they waste the parties' and
judicial resources. They also create the risk of inconsistent
rulings. In the underlying lawsuit, which will now be addressed by
the Illinois state court, the named plaintiff alleged that Google
violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by
using Google Photos service to scan individual pictures and extract
biometric data without informed consent.
This is a helpful procedural win for Google and for defendants
facing similarly duplicative privacy class actions around the
country.
"The significant costs imposed by piecemeal litigation -- dividing
the informed-consent claims and the retention-policy claims into
two different forums -- and the strong Illinois interest in
presenting an Illinois statutory dispute to the Illinois state
court system dictate that this federal case be stayed in favor of
the state case," Chang wrote. [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Seeks Dismissal of Fraud Claims in Privacy Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Holland, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Google LLC and
parent company Alphabet Inc. are arguing that several claims levied
against them in California federal court should be axed because
there's no evidence they acted intentionally to violate users'
privacy rights.
That lack of intentionality and lack of obfuscation on Google's
part means the plaintiffs' Consumers Legal Remedies Act and common
law fraud claims need to be tossed, the search giant alleged in a
reply in support of its motion to dismiss filed on Sept. 7 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs didn't immediately respond to
a request for comment. [GN]
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Barasch Trust Putative Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Stanley
S. and Millicent R. Barasch Trust and Loretta Dehay, individually
and on behalf of others similar situated v. GPB Capital Holdings,
LLC, et al., Case No. 19 Civ. 1079.
In November 2019, plaintiffs filed a putative class action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
against, certain limited partnerships, including the Partnership,
for which GPB is the general partner, Ascendant Alternative
Strategies (AAS), and Ascendant Capital, LLC, as well as certain
principals of the GPB-managed funds, auditors, a fund
administrator, and individuals.
The original Complaint named Millicent R. Barasch as the plaintiff,
but since her death, her trust has successfully moved to substitute
for all purposes in this litigation.)
The Complaint alleges civil conspiracy, fraud, substantial
assistance in the commission of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty,
substantial assistance in the breach of fiduciary duty, negligence,
and violations of the Texas Securities Act.
The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages, declaratory relief,
among other forms of relief.
GPB Automotive said, "Any potential losses associated with this
matter cannot be estimated at this time."
GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP is a holding company which was
organized as a Delaware limited partnership on May 27, 2013 and
commenced operations on that date. The company is based in New
York, New York.
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Consolidated Class Suit Underway in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In
re: GPB Capital Holdings, LLC Litigation (formerly, Adam Younker,
Dennis and Cheryl Schneider, Elizabeth Plaza, and Plaza
Professional Center Inc. PFT Sharing v. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC,
et al. and Peter G. Golder, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, et al.),
Case No. 157679/2019.
In May 2020, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint
in New York Supreme Court against GPB, GPB Holdings, GPB Holdings
II, GPB Holdings III, the Partnership, GPB Cold Storage, GPB Waste
Management, David Gentile, Jeffrey Lash, Macrina Kgil, a/k/a
Minchung Kgil, William Edward Jacoby, Scott Naugle, Jeffry
Schneider, Ascendant Alternative Strategies, Ascendant Capital, and
Axiom Capital Management.
The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the offering
documents for certain GPB-managed funds, include material
misstatements and omissions.
The plaintiffs are seeking disgorgement, unspecified damages, and
other equitable relief.
Any potential losses associated with this matter cannot be
estimated at this time.
GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP is a holding company which was
organized as a Delaware limited partnership on May 27, 2013 and
commenced operations on that date. The company is based in New
York, New York.
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Continues to Defend Kinnie Ma Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Kinnie
Ma Individual Retirement Account, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Ascendant Capital, LLC,
et al., Case No. 19-CV-1050
In October 2019, plaintiffs filed a putative class action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
against GPB Capital Holdings, LLC ("GPB"), certain limited
partnerships, including the Partnership, for which GPB is the
general partner, Alternative Strategies ("AAS"), and Ascendant
Capital, LLC, as well as certain principals of the GPB-managed
funds, auditors, broker-dealers, a fund administrator, and other
individuals.
The Complaint alleges violations of the Texas Securities Act,
fraud, substantial assistance in the commission of fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty, substantial assistance in breach of fiduciary duty,
and negligence.
The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and certain
equitable relief.
Any potential losses associated with this matter cannot be
estimated at this time.
GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP is a holding company which was
organized as a Delaware limited partnership on May 27, 2013 and
commenced operations on that date. The company is based in New
York, New York.
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Deluca and Drew Putative Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Barbara
Deluca and Drew R. Naylor, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated limited partners, v. GPB Automotive Portfolio,
LP et al., Case No. 19-CV-10498.
In November 2019, plaintiffs filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against GPB Capital Holdings, LLC (GPB), GPB
Holdings II, the company, David Gentile, Jeffery Lash, Ascendant
Alternative Strategies (AAS), Axiom, Jeffry Schneider, Mark
Martino, and Ascendant Capital, LLC (Ascendant).
The Complaint alleges, among other things, fraud and material
omissions and misrepresentations to induce investment.
The plaintiffs are seeking disgorgement, unspecified damages, and
other equitable relief.
GPB said, "Any potential losses associated with this matter cannot
be estimated at this time."
GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP is a holding company which was
organized as a Delaware limited partnership on May 27, 2013 and
commenced operations on that date. The company is based in New
York, New York.
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Ortiz Class Action Ongoing in New York
------------------------------------------------------
GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Monica Ortiz, on
behalf of herself and other individuals similarly situated vs. GPB
Capital Holdings LLC; Automile Holdings, LLC d/b/a Prime Automotive
Group; David Gentile; David Rosenberg; Philip Delzotta; Joseph
Delzotta; and other affiliated entities and individuals, Case No.
604918/2020.
In May 2020, plaintiffs filed a class action in New York Supreme
Court against GPB, Automile Holdings LLC d/b/a Prime Automotive
Group, David Gentile, David Rosenberg, Philip Delzotta, Joseph
Delzotta, and other affiliated entities and individuals.
The Complaint alleges deceptive and misleading business practices
of the named Defendants with respect to the marketing, sale, and/or
leasing of automobiles and the financial and credit products
related to the same throughout the State of New York.
The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and penalties. Any
potential losses associated with this matter cannot be estimated at
this time.
GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP is a holding company which was
organized as a Delaware limited partnership on May 27, 2013 and
commenced operations on that date. The company is based in New
York, New York.
GRAND GIFTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jimenez Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
ZURICH CARLOTA JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAND GIFTS & CAFE INC. (D/B/A
GRAND GIFT CAFE); and SAVVAS TSIATTALOS, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-07530 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 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 Jimenez was employed by the Defendants as storekeeper.
GRAND GIFTS & CAFE INC. owns and operates a gift shop and coffee
shop, located at Bronx, NY, under the name "Grand Gift Cafe". [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, New York 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
GRUBHUB INC: Illinois District Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 7, 2021, Judge Charles Ronald Norgle of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied
a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an online food delivery
company and certain of its executives. Azar v. Grubhub, Inc., No.
1:19-CV-07665, 2021 WL 4077327 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 7, 2021). Plaintiff
alleged that the company made misrepresentations regarding the
success of its marketing and expansion initiatives. The Court held
that plaintiff adequately alleged actionable misrepresentations and
scienter.
With respect to the alleged misrepresentations, the Court rejected
defendants' argument that the allegations amounted to impermissible
"fraud by hindsight" based on statements that ultimately turned out
to be incorrect. To the contrary, the Court determined that alleged
statements regarding how often new customers placed orders-such as
"we've been able to acquire high-quality new diners in . . . newer
markets" and "diners in [new] markets are behaving a lot like
diners do in other markets"-reflected statements of present fact,
which were "bolster[ed]" by plaintiff's allegations that the
company closely monitored customer metrics. Id. at *4. The Court
further held that statements regarding the company's restaurant
partners-including that the company had a "broad and deep
restaurant network" and grew "primarily [because of] better
restaurant choices"-were plausibly misleading in the face of
allegations that the company had failed to establish sufficient
restaurant density in new markets. Id. Moreover, because plaintiff
alleged that the company used data to track customer "quality" and
restaurant density, the Court held that the alleged misstatements
"could reasonably be interpreted as a factual claim" rather than
subjective statements of opinion. Id. at *5.
With respect to scienter, the Court held that the "totality of
[p]laintiff's allegations supports a strong inference that
[d]efendants knew about negative financial trends and spoke with an
intent to deceive." Id. The Court noted that seven sets of
allegations, taken together, supported an inference of scienter:
(i) new customer quality was low in the period before the
challenged statements were made, and the company closely analyzed
such data; (ii) the company never achieved adequate restaurant
density or customer quality; (iii) even before the challenged
statements were made, the company had begun to change its business
model for working with restaurants to match that of its competitors
and refinanced its debt; (iv) the company's CEO and CFO controlled
all aspects of the company, had access to proprietary information,
were directly involved in the company's expansion, and made
numerous statements regarding customer quality; (v) customer and
restaurant quality were important to the company's investors, (vi)
the issues the company eventually disclosed were so severe the
company became unprofitable and changed its business model; and
(vii) defendants were motivated to increase the company's stock
price, including because they could then more cheaply acquire
companies and increase payouts to defendants. Id. While the Court
agreed with defendants that certain allegations "in isolation" were
not sufficient to establish scienter, the Court concluded that,
considering all the allegations together, plaintiff's inference of
deceptive intent was "cogent" and "at least as compelling as
[d]efendants' opposing inference." [GN]
HAIN CELESTIAL: Sept. 27 Oral Argument on Appeal of Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26,
2021, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, that oral argument
on the appeal of the dismissal of the consolidated securities class
suit entitled, In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, is scheduled for September 27, 2021.
On August 17, 2016, three securities class action complaints were
filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Company
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The three complaints are: (1) Flora v. The Hain Celestial Group,
Inc., et al.; (2) Lynn v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al.;
and (3) Spadola v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al..
On June 5, 2017, the court issued an order for consolidation,
appointment of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approval of selection of
co-lead counsel.
Pursuant to this order, the Securities Complaints were consolidated
under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon Gimpel were
appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs.
On June 21, 2017, the Company received notice that plaintiff
Spadola voluntarily dismissed his claims without prejudice to his
ability to participate in the Consolidated Securities Action as an
absent class member.
The Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action filed
a Consolidated Amended Complaint on August 4, 2017 and a Corrected
Consolidated Amended Complaint on September 7, 2017 on behalf of a
purported class consisting of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Hain Celestial securities between November 5,
2013 and February 10, 2017.
The Amended Complaint named as defendants the Company and certain
of its former officers and asserted violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly
materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public
statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company's
business, prospects, financial results and internal controls.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
October 3, 2017 which the Court granted on March 29, 2019,
dismissing the case in its entirety, without prejudice to replead.
Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on May 6, 2019. The Second Amended Complaint again named
as defendants the Company and certain of its former officers and
asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations similar to those in the
Amended Complaint, including materially false or misleading
statements and omissions in public statements, press releases and
SEC filings regarding the Company's business, prospects, financial
results and internal controls.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on June 20, 2019. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an opposition on August
5, 2019, and Defendants submitted a reply on September 3, 2019.
On April 6, 2020, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice.
Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 5, 2020
indicating their intent to appeal the Court's decision dismissing
the Second Amended Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.
Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on August 18, 2020.
Defendants filed their opposition brief on November 17, 2020, and
Plaintiffs filed their reply brief on December 8, 2020.
Accordingly, Co-Lead Plaintiffs' appeal is fully briefed. Oral
argument is scheduled for September 27, 2021.
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes,
and sells organic and natural products. The company operates in
seven segments: the United States, United Kingdom, Tilda, Ella's
Kitchen UK, Canada, Europe, and Cultivate. The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake
Success, New York.
HAIN CELESTIAL: Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26,
2021, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, that the case
entitled, In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Stockholder Class
and Derivative Litigation, is still stayed.
On April 19, 2017 and April 26, 2017, two class action and
stockholder derivative complaints were filed in the Eastern
District of New York against the former Board of Directors and
certain former officers of the Company under the captions Silva v.
Simon, et al. and Barnes v. Simon, et al., respectively. Both the
Silva Complaint and the Barnes Complaint allege violation of
securities law, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets
and unjust enrichment.
On May 23, 2017, an additional stockholder filed a complaint under
seal in the Eastern District of New York against the former Board
of Directors and certain former officers of the Company.
The complaint alleged that the Company's former directors and
certain former officers made materially false and misleading
statements in press releases and SEC filings regarding the
Company's business, prospects and financial results.
The complaint also alleged that the Company violated its by-laws
and Delaware law by failing to hold its 2016 Annual Stockholders
Meeting and includes claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment and corporate waste. On August 9, 2017, the Court
granted an order to unseal this case and reveal Gary Merenstein as
the plaintiff.
On August 10, 2017, the court granted the parties' stipulation to
consolidate the Barnes Complaint, the Silva Complaint and the
Merenstein Complaint under the caption In re The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation (the
"Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action") and to
appoint Robbins Arroyo LLP and Scott+Scott as Co-Lead Counsel, with
the Law Offices of Thomas G. Amon as Liaison Counsel for
Plaintiffs.
On September 14, 2017, a related complaint was filed under the
caption Oliver v. Berke, et al., and on October 6, 2017, the Oliver
Complaint was consolidated with the Consolidated Stockholder Class
and Derivative Action. The Plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint under seal on October 26, 2017.
On December 20, 2017, the parties agreed to stay Defendants' time
to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated amended
complaint through and including 30 days after a decision was
rendered on the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the
Consolidated Securities Action.
On March 29, 2019, the Court in the Consolidated Securities Action
granted Defendants' motion, dismissing the Amended Complaint in its
entirety, without prejudice to replead.
Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action filed the
Second Amended Complaint on May 6, 2019.
The parties to the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative
Action agreed to continue the stay of Defendants' time to answer,
move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated amended complaint
through 30 days after a decision on Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities
Action.
On April 6, 2020, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action,
with prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the stay, Defendants in
the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action had until
May 6, 2020 to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint
in this matter.
This deadline was extended, and Defendants moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action Complaint on
June 23, 2020, with Plaintiffs' opposition due August 7, 2020.
On July 24, 2020, Plaintiffs made a stockholder litigation demand
on the current Board containing overlapping factual allegations to
those set forth in the Consolidated Stockholder Class and
Derivative Action.
On August 10, 2020, the Court vacated the briefing schedule on
Defendants' pending motion to dismiss in order to give the Board of
Directors time to consider the demand. On each of September 8 and
October 8, 2020, the Court extended its stay of any applicable
deadlines for 30 days to give the Board of Directors additional
time to complete its evaluation of the demand.
On November 3, 2020, Plaintiffs were informed that the Board of
Directors had finished investigating and resolved, among other
things, that the demand should be rejected.
On November 6, 2020, Plaintiffs and Defendants notified the Court
that Plaintiffs were evaluating the rejection of the demand, sought
certain additional information and were assessing next steps, and
requested that the Court extend the stay for an additional 30 days,
to on or around December 7, 2020.
Since that time, Plaintiffs and Defendants have filed a number of
joint status reports, requesting that the Court stay applicable
deadlines to allow for the production of certain materials by the
Board of Directors for review by Plaintiffs. The current stay
ordered by the Court is set to expire on October 29, 2021.
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes,
and sells organic and natural products. The company operates in
seven segments: the United States, United Kingdom, Tilda, Ella's
Kitchen UK, Canada, Europe, and Cultivate. The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake
Success, New York.
HALIFAX INVESTMENT: Dec. 10 Deadline Set to Sign Up Class Members
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Investment News New Zealand reports that disgruntled investors in
the collapsed Australasian broking firm Halifax Investment Services
have until December 10 at the latest to sign up as "active members"
of a funded class action appeal.
Under a product disclosure statement lodged in NZ, litigation fund
Omni Bridgeway Investment Management (OBIML) urge any so-called
'category 1' Halifax clients on both sides of the Tasman "who wish
to become Active Members of the Scheme" to apply before September
23 this year -- the date of an appeal to be heard both in Australia
and NZ courts.
"However, OBIML will accept applications from Category 1 Investors
to be admitted as a member of the Scheme up until such time that
the Funded Proceedings are the subject of a final judgment,
provided such date is no later than 10 December 2021," the PDS
says.
The Halifax appeal funding agreement is treated as an investment
scheme under Australian law, requiring disclosure documents to be
issued. Under the trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition agreement,
Australian investment schemes can register documents almost as-is
in NZ (and vice-versa).
As reported in August, a final settlement to distribute over A$200
million among the 12,000 Halifax clients -- including 3,800 in NZ
-- awaits the outcome of the appeal lodged by Choo Boon Loo as a
representative category 1 investor.
In a letter this August, the Australian legal firm handling the
appeal, Maddocks, notes: "The role of Mr Loo as a representative
party in the Initial Proceedings created complexities for
individual investors and their ability to bring an appeal. However,
it also gave rise to the possibility that any appeal, brought in
the name of Mr Loo, would need to be funded by Mr Loo personally.
For this reason, Mr Loo approached a litigation funder to assist
with the costs of any appeal proceedings. This course was supported
by a number of Category 1 Investors."
The appeal -- to be heard jointly by the Federal Court of Australia
and the NZ Court of Appeal on September 23 this year -- challenges
an earlier legal decision setting the valuation date for disputed
Halifax assets as at the time the firm collapsed into
administration late in November 2018.
According to the Loo appeal, the previous Australian and NZ Halifax
judgment should have "calculated the proportionate entitlements of
the clients of Halifax AU and Halifax NZ as close as possible to
the distribution date and, in any event, only after the Liquidators
realised all extant investments".
Halifax category 1 investors either "elected to keep their position
open following the November 2018 administration date or "had a
higher valuation on their investments post-administration", the
Maddocks letter says.
The trans-Tasman broking firm specialising in derivatives -- and
headed at the time in NZ by Andrew Gibbs -- collapsed late in 2018
revealing a A$20 million shortfall and the misuse of
co-mingled client funds.
While Halifax liquidator, KPMG, estimates all investors should
receive 100 per cent of their funds back as per the November 2018
valuation, the pending appeal could significantly alter the
distribution if it succeeds.
". . . should the Appeals be successful and the Courts conclude
that the Liquidators are justified in calculating the proportionate
entitlements of investors at a date later than the Administration
Date, the likely effect of that finding will be that Category 1
Investors will receive a larger distribution from the funds held on
trust than they otherwise would have received had the Appeals not
been pursued," Maddocks says.
Active members of the appeal will receive communication on the case
progress but all category 1 Halifax investors should benefit if the
courts rule in favour of Loo.
The global litigation funder, Omni Bridgeway, will take at least a
10 per cent cut of extra category 1 distribution if the appeal
succeeds while bearing all costs if the legal bid fails.
Omni Bridgeway also announced in July it would investigate
potential claims against CMC Markets for clients "who may have
suffered loss and damage relating to their investment" in the Crude
Oil West Texas Intermediate (WTI) Cash product.
As reported last year, some investors were caught short last year
as CMC altered pricing in the product amid extreme volatility in
the oil market. [GN]
HEALTHEXTRAS INC: Court Tosses Insurance Class Suit for 2nd Time
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Stoddard, Esq., -- christine.stoddard@faegredrinker.com
-- of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, disclosed that for a
second time, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissed a putative class action alleging
insurance companies sold them disability policies that were void
under New York law.
The suit arose in connection with the "HealthExtras" insurance
program, a program created by HealthExtras, Inc. offering
accidental disability and medical expense coverage through
marketing agreements with banks and companies offering branded
credit cards. Credit card holders were solicited through their
monthly credit card statements as well as by phone and direct mail.
Some of those marketing materials included the late actor
Christopher Reeves.
Plaintiffs alleged the policies were void ab initio because the
HealthExtras Program violated New York insurance law in various
ways. Specifically, they claimed the policies were group and/or
blanket policies that were not issued to eligible entities under
New York law, were not filed and approved with the New York
Department of Financial Services and did not contain standard
provisions required by law. Additionally, plaintiffs claimed the
policies were drafted to make coverage illusory. As such, they
argued the policies were illegal, against public policy, and either
void ab initio or voidable and brought claims for deceptive trade
practices and false advertising under New York General Business Law
(GBL) Secs. 349-350, fraud, and quasi-contract claims, including
unjust enrichment.
In 2016, the district court dismissed the case, finding plaintiffs
lacked standing -- a decision that was vacated by the Second
Circuit on appeal. Recently, the remaining insurer defendants again
moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were all time-barred, as
plaintiffs were aware of the facts and alleged misrepresentations
when coverage was issued in 2000, 15 years before the complaint was
filed.
The district court agreed the claims were time-barred. It rejected
plaintiffs' arguments that the continuing wrong doctrine and
equitable tolling saved their claims. As to the former, plaintiffs
did not allege a separate wrong that occurred with each premium
payment but claimed that the policies were sold with false and
misleading advertising. The later continuation of coverage, the
Court found, was the continuing effect of the earlier conduct. With
regard to the latter, even where a defendant's purported fraud
delays the filing of a lawsuit or conceals the existence of a cause
of action, a plaintiff is still required to bring the action within
a reasonable time after discovering the relevant facts. Here,
plaintiffs were on notice of the facts surrounding their claims by
at least 2005, at which point they had received all marketing
materials and policy terms but did not exercise due diligence in
investigating their claims thereafter. As such, all of the claims
were time-barred, and the court again granted the insurers' motion
to dismiss.
Dubuisson v. National Union Fire Ins. of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 15
Civ. 2259 (July 26, 2021) [GN]
HILL ENTERPRISE: Faces Espinal Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Espinal, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Hill Enterprise Inc., HTM Food Mart Inc.,
John Doe Corporations 1-20, Omar Mahmud and Tariq Mahmud,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-04973, (E.D. N.Y., September 3, 2021),
seeks to recover unpaid wages due to unpaid overtime and
spread-of-hours premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor Law and
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants own and operate multiple gas stations across New York
State where Espinal worked as a station attendant. He claims that
throughout the first nine days of his employment, he was forced to
undergo a training period during which he was not paid any wages.
During his employment, he also claims to have never received wage
statements. In addition to the wage and hour violations, Defendants
failed to provide Plaintiff with an accurate W-2 tax statement for
each tax year during which Plaintiff worked, asserts the complaint.
[BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
HOME DEPOT: Faces Carson Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA CARSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE HOME DEPOT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-01028-P (N.D. Tex., Sept. 7, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's engagement in unsolicited text messaging in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant continues to bombard
Plaintiff's cellular telephone with marketing text messages even
after repeated requests by Plaintiff for the messages to stop.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the
invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the
daily life of thousands of individuals.
The Home Depot, Inc. is a home improvement retailer in the United
States, supplying tools, construction products, and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave, Ste. 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
HOME DEPOT: Hearing for Class Cert. Bid Continued to Feb. 17, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNIE SANCHEZ BARRAGAN,
ARACELI BARRAGAN, and JEREMEY BURCHAM, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a
Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-01766-AJB-AGS (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order that the
hearing for Plaintiff Jeremy Burcham's motion for class
certification is continued to February 17, 2022.
The Defendant argues that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 6(b)(1)(A), the Court should continue the hearing as
Defendant may be barred from speaking to a class of Home Depot
employees about this case if this Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification on November 4, 2021.
The Defendant further contends that this investigation "is
imperative to Home Depot's ability to oppose Plaintiffs'
anticipated, second class certification motion on a meal premium
claim[.]" Thus, Defendant requests that this Court continue the
hearing date set for the Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion,
currently November 4, 2021, until the hearing date for Plaintiffs'
anticipated motion for class certification on a newly pleaded meal
premium claim.
The Plaintiffs oppose Defendant's ex parte application, arguing the
putative class members' testimony is irrelevant to Defendant's
analysis of the meal premium claim, and that even if Defendant
needed class declarations, it could obtain them post-certification.
Moreover, the Plaintiffs assert that Defendant is merely seeking to
delay class certification in an attempt to further delay this case.
The Plaintiffs also state they are willing to bifurcate the case,
where Plaintiff Burcham is willing to waive his right to
participate as a class representative as to the meal/rest premium
allegations. Thus, Jeremy Burcham would act as class representative
for the overtime claim, and Donnie Sanchez Barragan and Araceli
Barragan as class representatives for the remaining claims.
The Defendant counters that if a continuance is not granted, it may
suffer irreparable harm as it may be denied the opportunity to
investigate Plaintiffs' meal premium claim and prepare its defense
to class certification. The Defendant additionally asserts it
should not be denied the opportunity to speak to all subsets of a
meal premium class, and that even if Plaintiffs stipulate to allow
Defendant to speak to members of the overtime class about meal
break practices, there would be risk of confusion as to the issues
and employees' status as class members."
Home Depot is the largest home improvement retailer in the United
States, supplying tools, construction products, and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ceyqp6 at no extra charge.[CC]
HOMEADVISOR INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due May 5, 2022
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOMEADVISOR, INC.
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:16-cv-01849-PAB-KLM (D. Colo.), the Hon.
Judge Kristen L. Mix entered an order amending scheduling order to
reflect the following deadlines:
-- Affirmative Expert Disclosure/ November 12, 2021
Report Deadline
-- Rebuttal Expert Disclosure/ February 10, 2022
Report Deadline
-- Expert Discovery Cutoff March 21, 2022
-- Deadline to File Class May 5, 2022
Certification
-- Deadline to File Response to June 27, 2022
Class Certification Motion
-- Deadline to File Reply to August 8, 2022
Class Certification Motion
-- Deadline to File Dispositive 45 Days After Court's
Motions Order on Motion to
Certify Class
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Cihqyh at no extra charge.[CC]
HONEST COMPANY: Kirby McInerney Reminds of November 15 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of those who acquired The Honest
Company, Inc. ("Honest" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HNST): common
stock (a) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement
and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued
in connection with the Company's May 2021 initial public offering
("IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or (b) from May 3, 2021 through
September 15, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have
until November 15, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as
lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
On May 6, 2021, Honest completed its IPO, selling approximately 26
million shares of common stock for $16.00 per share.
Approximately two months after the IPO, on August 13, 2021, before
the market opened, Honest announced its second quarter 2021
financial results, reporting a net loss of $20 million, compared to
a net loss of only $0.4 million for the second quarter of 2020.
Honest disclosed that its revenue grew only 3% as compared to the
second quarter of 2020, because it was negatively impacted by "an
estimated $3.7 million COVID-19 stock-up impact primarily in
Diapers and Wipes in the prior year period." Honest also disclosed
that its Diapers and Wipes category revenue declined 2% compared to
the second quarter of 2020. Honest further disclosed that
"Household and Wellness revenue declined 6% from the second quarter
of 2020 as consumer and customer demand for sanitization products
decreased as consumers became vaccinated and customers managed
heavy levels of inventory." On this news, the Company's stock price
declined by $3.98 per share, or approximately 28.3%, from $14.05
per share to close at $10.07 per share on August 13, 2021.
On August 19, 2021, the Company's stock price closed at an all-time
low of $9.16 per share, a nearly 43% decline from the $16.00 per
share IPO price.
The Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and
omitted: (1) that, prior to the IPO, the Company's results had been
significantly impacted by a multimillion-dollar COVID-19 stock-up
for products in the Diapers and Wipes category and Household and
Wellness category; (2) that, at the time of the IPO, the Company
was experiencing decelerating demand for such products; (3) that,
as a result, the Company's financial results would likely be
adversely impacted; and (4) 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 Honest stock, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.
Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
HONEST COMPANY: Robbins Geller Reminds of Nov. 15 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Honest Company class action lawsuit charges The Honest Company,
Inc. (NASDAQ: HNST), certain of its officers and directors, and the
underwriters of Honest Company's May 2021 initial public offering
("IPO") with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Filed in the
Central District of California on September 15, 2021 and captioned
Dixon v. The Honest Company, Inc., No. 21-cv-07405, the Honest
Company class action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers of
Honest Company common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with Honest
Company's IPO.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Honest Company 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 Honest Company class action lawsuit must
be filed with the court no later than November 15, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Honest Company class action lawsuit alleges
that Honest Company's Registration Statement was materially false
and misleading and omitted that: (i) prior to the IPO, Honest
Company's results had been significantly impacted by a
multimillion-dollar COVID-19 stock-up for products in its Diapers
and Wipes as well as Household and Wellness product categories;
(ii) at the time of the IPO, Honest Company was experiencing
decelerating demand for such products; (iii) as a result, Honest
Company's financial results would likely be adversely impacted; and
(iv) as such, defendants' positive statements about Honest
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Approximately two months after the IPO, on August 13, 2021, Honest
Company reported a net loss of $20 million for the second quarter
of 2021, as compared to a net loss of only $0.4 million for the
second quarter of 2020. Honest Company also disclosed that its
revenue grew only 3% as compared to the second quarter of 2020,
because it was negatively impacted by "an estimated $3.7 million
COVID-19 stock-up impact primarily in Diapers and Wipes in the
prior year period." Honest Company also disclosed that its Diapers
and Wipes product category revenue declined 2% compared to the
second quarter of 2020. Honest Company further disclosed that
"Household and Wellness revenue declined 6% from the second quarter
of 2020 as consumer and customer demand for sanitization products
decreased as consumers became vaccinated and customers managed
heavy levels of inventory." On this news, Honest Company's stock
price fell approximately 28%, damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Honest
Company common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration
Statement issued in connection with the IPO to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the Honest Company 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 Honest
Company class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law
firm of its choice to litigate the Honest Company class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Honest Company 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. [GN]
HP INC: Investors Strike Out in Proposed Suit Over Printing Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Jackson at Reuters reports that a California federal judge
has thrown out HP investors' amended lawsuit alleging that the
company misled investors into believing the financial performance
of its printing supply business was improving.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco said that she
was granting HP's motion to dismiss the proposed securities class
action because the amended complaint failed to adequately allege
that HP had made misleading or false statements.
The investors' attorneys from Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check and
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann did not respond to requests
for comment. Neither did defense lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
attorneys advising HP or a company representative.
Rhode Island's Office of the General Treasurer initially sued HP in
February 2020 on behalf of HP shareholders Employees' Retirement
System of Rhode Island and Iron Workers Local 580, according to the
ruling.
After Illston dismissed the first amended complaint in March, the
HP shareholders filed a new amended complaint accusing the company
of misleading investors about the company's print supplies channel
inventory management and sales practices.
The complaint claimed the company failed to disclose limitations in
its model for assessing the state of the printing supplies
business' revenue. The investors said they were suing to recoup
losses they allegedly suffered when HP's share price plummeted
after the company disclosed corrected financial information for the
printing supplies unit. HP has denied wrongdoing.
The complaint also cited charges HP faced from the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission over allegations that the company concealed
efforts to boost sales of printing supplies in order to meet
quarterly sales and earnings targets. HP paid $6 million in
September 2020 to settle those claims without admitting or denying
them.
Ruling on HP's second motion to dismiss, Illston said shareholders
failed to show how the company made misleading statements about its
toner based products' market share and the stabilizing of its
printing supplies unit's revenue, among other aspects of the
business.
The judge also agreed with HP that the shareholders hadn't
plausibly alleged that the company knowingly or intentionally made
misleading statements about its printing supplies business.
The case is In re HP Inc. Securities Litigation, U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:20-cv-01260.
For lead plaintiffs: Jennifer Joost, Eli Greenstein and Stacey
Kaplan of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check; and Jonathan Uslaner of
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann.
For HP: Brian Lutz and Lissa Percopo of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher;
and Sara Brody of Sidley Austin. [GN]
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Battery Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------
lawyers4lemons.com reports that many consumers purchase Hyundai
vehicles because they are cost effective, and the manufacturer
offers long warranties. However, the automaker has recently become
known for selling vehicles with defective battery systems. In fact,
a class action lawsuit alleges Hyundai knew about the problem
before the first recall was ever issued, and this is not the first
time Hyundai class action lawsuits have been filed.
Hyundai isn't the first manufacturer to sell vehicles with
hazardous batteries. It's essential to understand that under
California's Lemon Law, vehicle manufacturers have responsibilities
- and consumers have rights. If you purchased a defective vehicle
such as a Hyundai, you might be able to hold the automaker
accountable for selling you a vehicle that did not conform to its
warranty.
What is the Problem with Hyundai Vehicles?
Despite the manufacturer's reputation for reliability, a problem
was discovered with the 2019-2020 Kona Electric and the 2020 Ioniq
Electric batteries found in Hyundai's SUVs and cars. Those who
owned and leased the affected vehicles were advised by the
manufacturer to park outside due to the risk of fire which was
supposedly linked to the defective batteries - at least 13 battery
fires occurred and are under investigation by Hyundai.
More than 80,000 vehicles were recalled by the manufacturer in
October 2020 due to the battery issue with repairs estimated at
$900 million. Specifically, the recalled vehicles were all equipped
with battery cells made in the LG Energy Solutions China plant in
Nanjing. The problem stems from the Anode tab on the defective
cells which can be folded allowing the Lithium plating to come into
contact with the Cathode. When this occurs, an electrical short can
result.
Hyundai will be replacing the defective batteries as part of the
recall. The manufacturer recommends owners adjust the maximum
charge level to 80% while they are waiting for the repair.
What Makes a Hyundai a Lemon?
California's Lemon Law sets forth stringent criteria that must be
satisfied in order for a vehicle to qualify as a lemon - and for
you to obtain the refund or replacement vehicle to which you're
entitled. Just because a car is subject to a recall or class action
doesn't necessarily mean it is a lemon. To invoke the lemon law,
the vehicle must still be under the original manufacturer's
warranty and fail to conform to it.
A reasonable number of repair attempts must also be made before a
car can qualify as a lemon. Generally, four repair attempts will
suffice to bring a lemon law claim. However, only two repair
attempts are needed if the problem is one that could cause injury
or fatality to the driver, their passengers, or others on the road.
A vehicle might also be a lemon if it was in the repair shop for 30
days or more and the defect was not fixed.
A Hyundai, or any other vehicle, may also be presumed to be a lemon
if the defect arose within the first 18 months of the vehicle's
delivery or within the first 18,000 miles driven.
What Does the Hyundai Class Action Lawsuit Allege?
A class action lawsuit, Siamak Kermani, v. Hyundai Motor America,
et al., was filed in California in June as a result of the battery
defect. The Hyundai class action lawsuit alleges that Hyundai knew
about the dangerous battery system but refused to make repairs and
informed owners that there was no actual remedy. Additionally, the
lawsuit argues that the software updates offered by Hyundai did
nothing to fix the defect. The class action - which is ongoing -
seeks buy-back refunds for the affected vehicles under the
California Lemon Law.
What Responsibilities Do Manufacturers Have Under California Lemon
Law?
Whether you own a Hyundai or another vehicle, you might be
wondering what a manufacturer's responsibilities are under the
lemon law. Unfortunately, many people think they have limited
options if they purchased a lemon - but if a manufacturer sells a
faulty vehicle, they may be required to replace it or refund the
buyer the purchase price under the lemon law.
A manufacturer also has obligations to notify owners if they become
aware of a problem with their vehicles. By law, automakers must
also offer warranties that address these protections. Owners must
be informed within 60 days of a recall being issued, and repairs
should be provided by the manufacturer at no cost. While many
recalls are issued voluntarily by the manufacturer, some are
ordered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Regardless of your warranty, it's crucial to be aware that the
manufacturer must provide you with at least the minimum protection
guaranteed by California's Lemon Law if you purchased the vehicle
within the state.
Contact an Experienced Southern California Lemon Law Attorney
If you purchased a Hyundai with a defective battery or another
problem that makes it fail to conform to its warranty, you might be
entitled to a legal remedy under California's Lemon Law. A skilled
lemon law attorney can best advise you and help to ensure you
obtain a positive resolution in your case. The lemon law attorneys
at The Ledbetter Law Firm are dedicated to achieving the best
possible results for each of their clients for the inconvenience
they experienced due to buying a lemon.
The Ledbetter Law Firm assists people in Southern California who
have experienced lemon law issues with their vehicles in obtaining
favorable outcomes in their cases. With offices conveniently
located in Torrance and San Diego, California, telephone and video
conferencing options are also available. Call (424) 407-3487 to
schedule a consultation with a California Lemon Law attorney. [GN]
J-M MANUFACTURING: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 1
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAMBRIDGE LANE, LLC, a
California limited liability company, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, v. J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., a
Delaware corporation d/b/a J-M PIPE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, and DOES
1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:10-cv-06638-GW-PJW (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge George H. Wu, entered an order regarding deadline to
respond to sixth amended complaint and reset schedule for class
certification as follows:
1. Plaintiff's deadline to file its Motion for Class
Certification is extended to October 1, 2021.
2. J-M's deadline to respond to the Sixth Amended Complaint
is extended to November 19, 2021;
3. If J-M files a motion in response to the Sixth Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff's deadline to file its Motion for
Class Certification will be taken off calendar pending
resolution of that motion.
J-M Manufacturing manufacturers of plastic pipe, fittings and
tubing products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hDdCzK at no extra charge.[CC]
JACOBS & CUSHMAN: Food Bank Leader Leaves Amid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Halverstadt, writing for Voice of San Diego, reports that The
Jacobs & Cushman San Diego Food Bank stepped up to respond to an
avalanche of need during the pandemic and now it's bracing for
increased demand for food aid in the years to come without its
longtime leader.
Jim Floros, who served as the Food Bank's CEO for nearly nine
years, abruptly left the nonprofit in mid-July without a public
announcement or explanation.
Casey Castillo, a nearly 14-year Food Bank veteran now serving as
the agency's interim CEO, declined to explain why Floros departed,
saying he could not comment on personnel matters.
Castillo also would not say whether Floros' departure was related
to a May class action lawsuit filed by a former employee who
alleged that the Food Bank and staffing company Randstad USA failed
to pay staffers for all hours they worked at the correct rates due
to mandates to work off the clock, among other issues. The suit
suggests that the number of employees eligible to join the action
could be more than 25. It doesn't include specific details on the
allegations or exactly when the issues played out.
"We do deny the claims in their entirety, but we are unable to
comment further on pending litigation," Castillo said.
Floros, who had been an outspoken advocate for the Food Bank, did
not return multiple messages left by Voice of San Diego.
Attorneys representing the former employee, Angel De La Torre, also
did not respond to multiple messages.
In the meantime, Food Bank leaders say other longtime executives
who remain at the agency, including Castillo, are well equipped to
help the nonprofit continue to feed hundreds of thousands of people
each month -- a number that exploded from about 350,000 a month
before the pandemic to roughly 600,000 a month at the height of
COVID-19's economic ravages.
To deal with the need, Castillo said, the nonprofit brought on
additional staff and partnered with nearly three dozen food
pantries throughout the region that now operate as high-volume
distribution hubs, among other moves.
Castillo said the Food Bank is now serving nearly 550,000 people a
month but is planning for future upticks along with other
challenges, including the halt of enhanced unemployment benefits,
ending eviction moratoriums and rising food prices.
"We expect to feed a lot of people throughout the next couple years
at a similar pace," Castillo said.
But sustaining a dramatically bolstered food distribution system is
not the only issue confronting the Food Bank.
In a statement, Food Bank board chairman Steve Bernstein wrote that
the agency's board is convening a committee to work with the
nonprofit's executives to "address future leadership of the
organization."
In the aftermath of Floros' departure, Feeding San Diego CEO Dan
Shea -- who leads San Diego's other food bank -- said he suspects
the leadership change will help the two organizations better
partner to tackle the surging food need.
The Food Bank has faced transitions during challenging times
before.
More than a decade ago, the food bank lost its certification as an
affiliate of national charity Feeding America and former San Diego
Food Bank board members rushed to start the operation now dubbed
Feeding San Diego just months before the start of the Great
Recession.
The San Diego Food Bank later bounced back with the help of
long-held U.S. Department of Agriculture contracts, which have long
supplied a substantial portion of its food haul, as well as new
agreements with other food sources. The nonprofit became the Jacobs
& Cushman San Diego Food Bank after philanthropists Irwin Jacobs
and Steve Cushman paid off the mortgage for the nonprofit's Miramar
warehouse.
That left San Diego with two thriving food banks largely reliant on
different food sources that during the pandemic collectively
distributed far more food via mass distribution events, local
pantries and other programs than before to meet a skyrocketing
need.
Before the pandemic, the San Diego Hunger Coalition estimated that
about 25 percent of county residents were considered nutrition
insecure due to incomes that fall under 200 percent of the federal
poverty level, or $53,000 for a family of four.
Hunger Coalition CEO Anahid Brakke said that estimate rose to 39
percent during the height of the pandemic — and those who were
already struggling face more challenges during the pandemic.
"People that were already food insecure really became even more
food insecure," Brakke said.
To address the crisis, Castillo said, the Food Bank alone
distributed the equivalent of 50 million meals over fiscal year
2020-21, up from 35.8 million the year before.
Feeding San Diego, meanwhile, said it distributed the equivalent of
more than 40 million meals over fiscal year 2020-21, up from about
26 million meals a couple years earlier.
Data from the Hunger Coalition, which compiles information from
both food banks and other sources, shows distributors, including
the food banks, delivered 85 percent more meals in November 2020
than they had in January 2020. This March alone, the coalition
estimates, those sources collectively distributed nearly 5.3
million meals.
During the pandemic, Brakke said, federal government policies that
made it far easier to access benefits such as CalFresh, temporary
increases in benefits and dialed-up efforts by the food banks and
groups temporarily helped address hunger needs that she and others
expect will rise again as pandemic-related aid and policies wind
down.
In January 2020, the Hunger Coalition estimated food assistance
resources, including CalFresh and the food banks, delivered about
18.5 million meals to San Diegans, whether in the form of
assistance or food items. This March, the Hunger Coalition reports
those sources provided the equivalent of 32.3 million meals.
Yet they still aren't meeting the entirety of the need -- and
advocates who work on food insecurity issues expect things will
worsen before they improve.
That puts more pressure on San Diego's food banks.
"People are definitely hurting, and it's about to get so much
worse, and we have to work closely together to make sure that every
single thing that people are eligible for, that they can get that
support," Brakke said.
Brakke, who declined to comment on Floros' departure, said she is
confident San Diego's hunger relief organizations and philanthropic
supporters can come together to address the crisis in a more
collaborative way in the months to come.
"I think people are coming out of their silos and looking at ways
to work more closely together," Brakke said.
Indeed, Castillo and Feeding San Diego CEO Dan Shea were set to
meet to discuss how they can work together and fill gaps.
Castillo and Shea both told VOSD that a merger with Feeding San
Diego repeatedly pushed -- albeit unsuccessfully -- by Floros and
other Food Bank leaders in the years before the pandemic isn't on
the table for now.
Floros and others had long suggested the groups might serve more
hungry San Diegans if they joined forces.
Castillo said the two food banks have regularly met and
collaborated over the years, particularly during the pandemic, to
ensure they are "meeting the challenges of a vast rise in food
insecurity due to the pandemic."
Shea told VOSD that he expected Floros' departure would pave the
way for more joint efforts.
"There's a new spirit of cooperation," Shea said. "I attribute it
to the fact that Floros is no longer there because he never
demonstrated interest in actually collaborating before, and my hat
is off to the board and management of the San Diego Food Bank for
participating in discussions that are going to lead us to better
serve the community together."
Mitch Mitchell, a Food Bank advisory board member who helped revive
the agency years ago, said collaboration between the two
organizations has improved in recent years but some more expansive
suggestions about how the two groups might increase their
collective impact together have flailed. (Disclosure: Mitchell is
also a VOSD board member.) He now believes that could change.
"There were big ideas that were mentioned and discussed over the
last few years that didn't go anywhere that did create a level of
frustration among some of the donors," Mitchell said. "We now are
having serious conversations because we both have this
understanding of how much better we need to be over the next few
years." [GN]
JIM'S TOWING: Campbell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jim's Towing Service,
Inc. The case is styled as Zainful Arfin Campbell, individually, on
representative basis, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Jim's Towing Service, Inc., Case No. BCV-21-102083
(Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Sept. 2, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Jim's Towing Service -- https://www.jimstowingservice.com/ -- is a
towing service in Bakersfield, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Misty M. Lauby, Esq.
LAUBY, MANKIN & LAUBY LLP
4590 Allstate Dr.
Riverside, CA 92501-1702
Phone: 951-321-6008
Fax: 951-320-1445
Email: misty@lmlfirm.com
- and -
Kaleb L. Judy, Esq.
BELDEN BLAINE RAYTIS, LLP
5016 California Ave., Suite 3
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Phone: 661-864-7826
Fax: 661-878-9797
Email: kaleb@bbr.law
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Pedron Sues Over Defective Sunscreen Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roxane M. Pedron, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-23189-MGC (S.D. Fla., Sept. 2, 2021), is brought concerning
defective sunscreen products containing benzene--a known human
carcinogen--which were manufactured, sold, and distributed by
Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. ("J&J") and its related
entities, including entities that are represented to be defunct
such as the Neutrogena Corporation.
According to the complaint, Defendant J&J markets, distributes, and
sells sunscreen products containing benzene while misrepresenting
as safe its Defective Sunscreens and deceptively concealing the
fact that the products are prone to increase the risk of skin
cancer and other diseases, including leukemia, multiple myeloma,
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and anemia--all found to be caused by or
linked to benzene.
Because of the common, uniform Defect, the Defendant's sunscreen
products often fail to perform as they should. Instead of
protecting the Plaintiff and other sunscreen product users from the
risk of cancer, the presence of benzene within the Defective
Sunscreens actually increases sunscreen users' chances of
developing a host of diseases caused by or linked to benzene,
including leukemia, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and
anemia.
The Plaintiff and the Classes also suffered damages as a result of
te Defendant's concealment and suppression of the facts concerning
the safety, quality, and reliability of the Defendant's Defective
Sunscreens. The Defendant's false representations and omissions
concerning the safety and reliability of those sunscreen products
and the Defendant's concealment of the known safety defect plaguing
those products and its brand caused the Plaintiff and Class Members
to purchase the Defendant's sunscreen products of diminished value.
Had the Defendant's customers known that the sunscreen products
they were using to decrease the risk of skin cancer actually
contained excessive levels of a known carcinogen, the Defendant's
customers certainly would not have purchased those products, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased at least one of the Defective Sunscreens
sold by J&J.
J&J is one of the largest manufacturers and distributors of
sunscreen.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Prieto, Esq.
John Gravante, Esq.
Matthew P. Weinshall, Esq.
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
One S.E. Third Ave, Suite 2300
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 358-2800
Fax: (305) 358-2382
Email: pprieto@podhurst.com
jgravante@podhurst.com
mweinshall@podhurst.com
JORGE HADDOCK: Must Respond to Class Cert. Bid by Sept. 28
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ramos-Ramos, et al., v.
Haddock et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01232 (D.P.R.), the Hon. Judge
Pedro A. Delgado-Hernandez entered an order directing that
Defendants shall respond to motion for class certification not
later than September 28, 2021.
The suit involves civil rights related violations.[CC]
KAMAYA ELECTRIC: Settlement Hearings in Linear Resistors Suit Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TO: All persons and entities in Canada who purchased linear
resistors or a product containing linear resistors between July 9,
2003 and September 14, 2015 (the "Settlement Class Members").
If you bought an electronic device containing linear resistors
between July 9, 2003 and September 14, 2015 ("Class Period"), such
as computers, smartphones, gaming consoles, home appliances and
televisions, among other products you may be a Settlement Class
Member and your legal rights could be affected.
READ THE COMPLETE PUBLIC NOTICE
WHAT DO I NEED TO DO AT THIS TIME?
If you do not oppose the proposed settlement, you do not need to
appear at the hearings or take any other action at this time. In
the interim, we recommend you retain all purchase receipts for
linear resistors or products containing linear resistors made
during the Class Period.
Should you wish to be kept up to date as these Class Actions
proceed, you can register with Class Counsel at the contact
information below.
If you want to tell the courts what you think about the proposed
settlement or speak to the courts at the hearings mentioned above,
you must send your written submissions to Foreman & Company, 4
Covent Market Place, London ON N6A 1E2 or by e-mail to
classactions@foremancompany.com, which must be received by November
17, 2021 at the latest. Contact information for Class Counsel can
be found below. Class Counsel will provide all such submissions to
the appropriate Court.
In the Class Actions, a settlement has been reached with Kamaya
Electric Co., Ltd. and Kamaya, Inc. (collectively "Kamaya").
The Kamaya defendants are the second group of defendants to enter
into a settlement in the Class Actions.
Kamaya has agreed to pay CAD $770,000 (the "Settlement Amount") for
the benefit of Settlement Class Members. Kamaya has also agreed to
provide meaningful early co-operation to the plaintiffs in pursuing
their claims against the other defendants. In exchange, Kamaya will
be provided with a full release of the claims against them and the
Class Actions against them will be dismissed.
The settlement, which was negotiated over several months, is not an
admission by Kamaya of liability, fault, or wrongdoing, but is a
compromise of disputed claims. The plaintiffs sought and were
granted certification / authorization of the Class Actions in
Ontario and Quebec for settlement purposes only.
The settlement is subject to court approval. There will be
settlement approval hearings in Ontario and Quebec. These hearings
are to take place at:
-- the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on November 25th, 2021 at
3:00pm by virtual hearing; and
-- the Superior Court of Quebec on November 23rd at 9:30am at 1,
rue Notre-Dame Est, Montreal, Quebec, Room 15.10, and by virtual
hearing whose designation and ID address will be indicated later on
the following website:
https://www.recourscollectif.info/en/cases/resistances_lineaire/
The courts will decide whether the settlement is fair, reasonable,
and in the best interest of Settlement Class Members. [GN]
KEESLER FEDERAL: Court Amends Case Management Schedule in Lloyd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHIRLEY LLOYD, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. KEESLER FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:19-cv-00351-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss.), the Hon.
Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden entered an order as follows:
1. The Parties' request to extend the deadline to complete
class discovery to October 15, 2021 is granted.
2. The Parties' request to allow Plaintiff until November 15,
2021 to file her motion for class certification is
granted.
3. No further extensions of these deadlines will be granted.
Keesler Federal Credit Union is a credit union headquartered in
Biloxi, Mississippi, chartered and regulated under the authority of
the National Credit Union Administration of the U.S. federal
government.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EnMxdT at no extra charge.[CC]
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Dansky Sues Over Defective CPAP Devices
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL DANSKY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH
AMERICA LLC; and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-16582-RBK-AMD (D.N.J., Sept. 8, 2021) seeks to recover
damages based on Philips' alleged breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranties, misrepresentations, omissions, and
breaches of state consumer protection laws in connection with its
manufacture, marketing and sales of Continuous Positive Airway
Pressure (CPAP) and Bi-Level Positive Airway Pressure (Bi-Level
PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators containing polyester-based
polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR foam).
On April 26, 2021, Philips made a public announcement disclosing it
had determined there were risks that the PE-PUR Foam used in
certain CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and mechanical ventilator devices it
manufactured may degrade or off-gas under certain circumstances. On
June 14, 2021, Royal Philips issued a recall in the United States
of its CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and mechanical ventilator devices
containing PE-PUR Foam, because Philips had determined that (a) the
PE-PUR Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may
enter the devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and
(b) the PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during
operation.
Allegedly, Philips repeatedly advertised on the labels and packing
for the Recalled Devices, on Philips' websites, and through
national advertising campaigns, among other items, that the
Recalled Devices were safe and fit for human use. Philips failed to
disclose the material information that the PE-PUR Foam used in the
Recalled Devices, and therefore the Recalled Devices themselves,
were unsafe and unfit for human use, the suit added.
As a direct and proximate result of Philips' alleged unlawful
conduct, Plaintiff and the Class and Subclass have suffered actual
damages in that they purchased the Recalled Devices (a) that were
worth less than the price they paid, (b) which they would not have
purchased at all had they known of the health risks, including
organ failure and cancer, associated with the use of the Recalled
Devices, and (c) which did not conform to the Recalled Devices'
labels, packaging, advertising, and statements.
Koninklijke Philips NV is a health technology company focused on
improving people's health across the health continuum from healthy
living and prevention, to diagnosis, treatment, and home care. The
Company offers products and services in diagnostic imaging,
image-guided therapy, patient monitoring and health informatics, as
well as in consumer health and home care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph L. Messa, Jr., Esq.
Ashley B. DiLiberto, Esq.
MESSA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
2000 Academy Drive, Suite 200
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
Telephone: (856) 810-9500
Facsimile: (856) 810-9918
E-mail: adiliberto@messalaw.com
jmessa@messalaw.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Scheibel Files Suit in D. Kansas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koninklijke Philips
N.V., et al. The case is styled as Robert Scheibel, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Koninklijke Philips
N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips RS North America LLC, Case
No. 2:21-cv-02405-KHV-KGG (D. Kan., Sept. 15, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. -- https://www.philips.com/global -- is a
Dutch multinational conglomerate corporation that was founded in
Eindhoven.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq.
SHARP LAW, LLP
4820 West 75th Street
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Phone: (913) 901-0505
Fax: (913) 901-0419
Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com
rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com
KROGER CO: Ct. Amends June 18, 2021 Scheduling Order in Solano
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELISHA SOLANO, DONNA JUEL,
RICK VENEMAN, PAUL RUGGLES, ROBERT ANDERSON, ARLENE JOHNSTON, HOLLY
SIMONE, KATHLEEN ZACH, MICHAEL TEEGARDEN, CAROLYN ESPINOZA, DENISE
CONROY, individually and on, behalf of other customers, v. THE
KROGER CO., dba FRED MEYER, Case No. 3:18-cv-01488-AC (D. Or.), the
Hon. Judge John V. Acosta entered an order that the June 18, 2021
Order amending scheduling order and bifurcating discovery shall be
amended as follows:
-- "Class Certification Fact Discovery is to be completed by
9/17/2021" shall be changed to "Class Certification Fact
Discovery is to be completed by 12/16/2021";
-- "Motion for Class Certification is to be filed by Sept.
23, 2021" shall be changed to "Motion for Class
Certification is to be filed by December 22, 2021;" and
-- All other remaining deadlines and provisions under the
Court’s June 18, 2021, Order Amending Scheduling Order and
Bifurcating Discovery shall remain in place.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nKBTrO at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel J. Nichols, Esq.
HARRIS BERNE CHRISTENSEN LLP
15350 SW Sequoia Pkwy, Suite 250
Portland, OR 97224
Telephone: (503) 334-0611
E-mail: dan@hbclawyers.com
- and -
Michael Fuller, Esq.
OLSENDAINES
US Bancorp Tower
111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 222-2000
E-mail: michael@underdoglawyer.com
- and -
Kelly D. Jones, Esq.
Young Walgenkim, Esq.
Telephone: (503) 383-1496
E-mail: kellydonovanjones@gmail.com
young@hansonwalgenkim.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kevin H. Kono, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
Portland, OR 97201-5610
Telephone: (503) 241-2300
E-mail: kevinkono@dwt.com
- and -
Frederick B. Burnside, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 757-8016
E-mail: fredburnside@dwt.com
- and -
Jacob M. Harper, Esq.
James H. Moon, Esq.
865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
Telephone: (213) 633-6800
E-mail: jharper@dwt.com
jamesmoon@dwt.com
LANNETT CO: Class Certification Bid in Pennsylvania Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, that the motion for class
certification in the putative class action suit filed before the
federal district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
has been granted.
In November 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and two of its former officers in the federal district
court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the
Company and two of its former officers damaged the purported class
by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
drug pricing methodologies and internal controls.
In December 2017, counsel for the putative class filed a second
amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint in February 2018.
In July 2018, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint. In September 2018, counsel for the
putative class filed a third amended complaint alleging that the
Company and two of its former officers made false and misleading
statements regarding the impact of competition on prices and sales
of certain of the Company's products, regarding the potential
effects on the Company of regulatory investigations and antitrust
litigation, and regarding the defendants' investigation of
purported anticompetitive conduct.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint
in November 2018. In May 2019, the court denied the Company's
motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. In July 2019, the
Company filed an answer to the third amended complaint.
On October 1, 2020, counsel for the putative class filed a motion
for class certification. In March 2021, the Company filed a brief
in opposition to the motion to certify the putative class. On
August 12, 2021, the Court entered an Order granting the motion and
certifying the class.
In August 2021, the court granted the motion to certify the
proposed class, to appoint class representatives, and to appoint
class counsel.
Lannett said, "The Company believes it acted in compliance with all
applicable laws and continues to vigorously defend itself from
these claims. The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of
the suit at this time."
Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets,
and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products
in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended
release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage
forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well
as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft
gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in
1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
LANNETT CO: Court Junks Contaminated Ranitidine Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, that the Court in the consolidated
class action complaint related to contaminated ranitidine, granted
the Company's motion to dismiss Master Personal Injury Complaint,
Consolidated Consumer Class Action Complaint and Consolidated third
Party Payor Class Complaint, all based on federal preemption.
On June 1, 2020, a class action complaint was served upon the
Company and approximately forty-five (45) other companies asserting
claims for personal injury arising from the presence of
N-Nitrosodimethylamine ("NDMA") in Ranitidine products.
The complaint is consolidated in a multidistrict litigation ("MDL")
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. Similar complaints were filed in state court
in New Mexico and state court in Maryland and served upon the
Company. Subsequently, a number of similar complaints were served
on the Company.
The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint filed in
the MDL which, on December 31, 2020, was granted with leave to
amend as to certain of the claims.
The plaintiffs filed a First Amended complaint on February 9, 2021,
to which the generic manufacturer defendants, including the
Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss all claims.
On July 8, 2021, the Court issued an Order granting the motion and
dismissing all claims with prejudice based on federal preemption.
Separately, the New Mexico case was conditionally transferred to
the MDL, but ultimately remanded back to the state court. Since the
Company was not licensed to do business in New Mexico and, based
upon the information received to date, did not sell Ranitidine in
New Mexico, we plan to file a motion to dismiss based, among other
things, federal preemption and lack of jurisdiction.
Separately, the Company filed a notice to remove and transfer the
Maryland case to the MDL which the plaintiff has opposed.
On April 1, 2021, the case was remanded back to the state court.
On August 17, 2021, Helena Hilbert & William Hilbert III,
Individually and on behalf of their minor child "WH", filed a
complaint in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas against the
Company and approximately seven other defendants, alleging personal
injury as a result of using the Company's Ranitidine products.
The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss all of the pending
state claims, among other reasons, based on federal preemption.
Lannett said, "The Company has placed its insurance carrier on
notice of the claim and the carrier has appointed counsel to defend
the Company."
Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets,
and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products
in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended
release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage
forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well
as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft
gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in
1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
LANNETT COMPANY: Utesch Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Utesch, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO RETIREMENT
SYSTEM v. Lannett Company, Inc., ARTHUR P. BEDROSIAN, MARTIN P.
GALVAN, Case No. 2:21-mc-01056, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Sept.
14, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-mc-00066-WB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes: Other Statutory
Actions.
Lannett Company -- https://www.lannett.com/ -- has been providing
high-quality, affordable generic pharmaceutical products for over
75 years.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ian D. Berg, Esq.
ABRAHAM FRUCHTER & TWERSKY LLP
214 Canterbury Ct.
Blue Bell, PA 19422
Phone: (484) 370-2062
Email: iberg@aftlaw.com
- and -
Takeo A. Kellar, Esq.
ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92130
Phone: (858) 764-2580
Fax: (858) 764-2582
Email: tkellar@aftlaw.com
LASALLE CORRECTIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Stanfield Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDITH STANFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LASALLE CORRECTIONS WEST, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-01535-DJH (D. Ariz., Sept. 8, 2021) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.
Plaintiff Stanfield was employed by the Defendant as nurse.
LASALLE CORRECTIONS WEST, LLC developer and operator of
correctional centers throughout the States of Louisiana, Texas, New
Mexico, Arizona, and Georgia. Since 1997, LaSalle has been
providing corrections industry solutions to law enforcement
agencies. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Courtney Lowery, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
E-mail: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com
LEND LEASE: Court Narrows Claims in Burn Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SSGT GARRETT BURN, et al.,
v. LEND LEASE (US) PUBLIC PARTNERSIIlPS LLC, et al., Case No.
7:20-cv-00174-D (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge James C. Dever III
entered an order:
1. granting in part and denying in part the defendants'
motions to dismiss;
2. granting the plaintiffs' motion for judicial notice; and
3. granting the plaintiffs' motion to supplement the record.
The Court said, "Defendants move to strike plaintiffs' class
allegations. A motion to strike a complaint's class allegations
under Rule 12(f) should be granted when it is clear from the face
of the complaint that the plaintiff cannot meet Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23's requirements for certification because the
plaintiff has failed to properly allege facts sufficient to make
out a class.
Generally, however, courts do not strike class allegations at the
pleadings stage but instead allow for pre-certification discovery
before making a certification decision under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(c)(1).
On September 18, 2020, Staff Sergeant Garrett Bum and his wife
Kalie Bum and Corporal William Lewis and his wife Lakin Lewis filed
a complaint alleging claims under the North Carolina law claims for
breach of contract, negligence, and nuisance; and claims for
declaratory and injunctive relief against Lend Lease (US) Public
Partnerships LLC, Lend Lease (US) Public Partnerships Holdings LLC,
AMCC Managing Member LLC, Atlantic Marine Corps Communities, LLC,
AMCC Property Management LLC, Atlantic Marine Corps Communities
Property Management, LLC, Winn Management Group LLC, and WR South
LLC.
The Defendants are entities of Lend Lease and who own and manage
over 4,000 housing units on Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune under a
50-year ground lease with the United States Department of the Navy.
The Defendants are part of a network of interconnected business
activities.
The Plaintiffs are service members and their spouses who lived in
defendants' privatized military housing at MCB Camp Lejeune between
2015 and 2019.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nCT9Py at no extra charge.[CC]
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Hill Bid to Certify Class Moot
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hill v. LexisNexis Risk
Solutions Bureau LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-00560 (W.D. Mo.), the Hon.
Judge Roseann Ketchmark entered an order:
1. finding as moot the motion to certify class;
2. finding as moot motion to strike expert reports of Vivek
Shah, PH.D.; and
3. finding as moot the motion for leave to file reply
suggestions under seal.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Practices
Act involving consumer credit.
LexisNexis is a reseller of credit information.[CC]
LIVE VENTURES: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Live Ventures Incorporated ("Live" or
"the Company") (NASDAQ : LIVE) investors that acquired securities
between December 28, 2016 and August 3, 2021.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.
It is alleged in this complaint that Live made misleading and/or
false statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Live's
earnings per share for fiscal year 2016 was, in reality, only $6.33
per share; (2) that Live used an artificially low share count in
order to boost the earnings per share by 40%; (3) that Live had
overstated it's pre-tax income for the fiscal year 2016 by 20%, by
including $915,500 of 'other income' related to certain amendments
that had not been negotiated until after the close of the fiscal
year; (4) that Live's acquisition of ApplianceSmart did not close
within the first quarter 2017; (5) that using an 'acquisition date'
of December 30, 2017 and recognizing income therefrom did not
conform to generally accepted accounting principles; (6) that, by
falsely stating that the acquisition closed during the first
quarter 2017, Live recognized bargain purchase gain, enabling the
Company to report positive net income in what would otherwise have
been an unprofitable quarter; (7) that between fiscal year 2016 and
fiscal year 2018, Live's CEO received approximately 94% more in
compensation than had been disclosed to investors; and (8) Live's
statements about its business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at
all relevant times, as a result.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]
LIVE VENTURES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 12 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Live Ventures Incorporated (NASDAQ:
LIVE) between December 28, 2016 and August 3, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important October 12, 2021 lead plaintiff
deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Live securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Live class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2137.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 12, 2021.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Live's earnings per share for
fiscal year ("FY") 2016 was actually only $6.33 per share; (2) Live
used an artificially low share count to boost the earnings per
share by 40%; (3) Live had overstated pre-tax income for fiscal
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; (4) Live's acquisition of ApplianceSmart did
not close during first quarter 2017; (5) using December 30, 2017 as
the "acquisition date" and recognizing income therefrom did not
conform to generally accepted accounting principles; (6) by falsely
stating that the acquisition closed during the quarter, Live
recognized bargain purchase gain, which enabled Live to report
positive net income in what would otherwise have been an
unprofitable quarter; (7) between FY 2016 and FY 2018, Live's CEO
received approximately 94% more in compensation than was disclosed
to investors; and (8) as a result, defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.
To join the Live class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2137.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
LOANDEPOT INC: Federman & Sherwood Reminds of November 5 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on September 3, 2021, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California Southern Division against
loanDepot, Inc. (NYSE: LDI). The complaint alleges violations of
federal securities laws, Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1933, including allegations of issuing a series of
material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class
Period, which is February 16, 2021 through September 3, 2021.
To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-loandepot-inc/
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages on behalf of all loanDepot,
Inc. investors who purchased common stock during the Class Period.
You may move the Court no later than November 5, 2021 to serve as a
lead plaintiff for the entire Class.
If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this litigation, or should you have any questions
regarding this notice or preservation of your rights, please
contact: Priscilla Scoggins at pms@federmanlaw.com or visit the
firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com. [GN]
LOANDEPOT INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of November 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Sept. 11 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired loanDepot, Inc. ("loanDepot"
or the "Company") (NYSE: LDI) shares pursuant and/or traceable to
the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with loanDepot's
February 16, 2021 initial public offering ("IPO"). loanDepot
investors have until November 8, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.
In February 2021, loanDepot completed its initial public offering
("IPO"), selling 3.85 million shares of Class A common stock at
$14.00 per share.
By August 17, 2021, loanDepot's stock price fell 42% below the IPO
price after the Company disclosed disappointing second quarter 2021
financial results and provided significantly lower guidance for its
business.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) loanDepot's refinance originations had already declined
substantially at the time of the IPO due to industry over-capacity
and increased competition; (2) loanDepot's gain-on-sale margins had
already declined substantially at the time of the IPO; (3) as a
result, loanDepot's revenue and growth would be negatively
impacted; and (4) as a result, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.
If you purchased loanDepot securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than November 8, 2021 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you purchased loanDepot securities, have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
LOANDEPOT INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of November 8 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Sept. 7 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
loanDepot, Inc. ("loanDepot" or "the Company") (NYSE: LDI) for
violations of the federal securities laws.
Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted on
February 16, 2021 (the "IPO"), are encouraged to contact the firm
before November 8, 2021.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. LoanDepot's refinance originations were
in decline at the time of the IPO due to competition amongst other
factors. The Company's gain-on-sale margins had also fallen
significantly at the same time. Both declines would impact the
Company's financial results. Based on these facts, the Company's
public statements were false and materially misleading throughout
the IPO period. When the market learned the truth about loanDepot,
investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
Contacts:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
MASSACHUSETTS DOR: Green Suit Removed to D. Mass.
-------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Julian Green, Eugene Ivey, James P Mckenna,
Lisa Newman-Polk, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Massachusetts Department of Correction; Carol
Mici, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Correction,
in her official capacity; Premier Biotech, Inc., Case No.
2184CV01713 was removed from the Suffolk County Superior Court to
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
on Sept. 14, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-11504-GAO to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
The Massachusetts Department of Correction --
https://www.mass.gov/orgs/massachusetts-department-of-correction --
is responsible for operating the prison system of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Janet M. Herold, Esq.
JUSTICE CATALYST LAW
123 William Street, 16th Flr.
New York, NY 10038
Phone: (518) 732-6703
Email: jherold@justicecatalyst.org
The Defendants are represented by:
Kenneth B. Walton, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
One International Place, Suite 350
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (857) 313-3936
Email: ken.walton@lewisbrisbois.com
MATRIX ABSENCE: Settlement Talks in "Weeks" Extended to 30 Days
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tina Weeks, et al. v.
Matrix Absence Management Incorporated, Case No. 2:20-cv-00884-SPL
(D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Steven P. Logan entered an order
granting the joint motion to extend the deadline to engage in
settlement talks to 30 days after the Court's ruling on class
certification.
Matrix is an insurance company that provides services like
disability managemennt and workman compensation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hK8OZL at no extra charge.[CC]
METROPOLITAN TOWER: Pitt Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN A. PITT,
Individually, as Successor-In-Interest to MICHAEL A. PITT,
Decedent, on Behalf of the Estate of MICHAEL A. PITT, and on Behalf
of the Class, v. METROPOLITAN TOWER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00694-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel E.
Butcher entered an order granting the joint motion and stipulation
for additional discovery for class certification and for briefing
class certification as follows:
-- All discovery for Plaintiff's motion for class
certification must be completed on or before October 15,
2021.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification must be
filed on or before November 1, 2021.
-- Counsel must contact the Court's chambers regarding
setting all remaining case management dates within three
days of the Court's ruling on the motion for class
certification.
Metropolitan Tower operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XrVMJs at no extra charge.[CC]
MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Faces Public Housing Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On September 7, 2021, Kimberly Lowry filed a class action
challenging the alleged discrimination faced by public housing
tenants in Minneapolis due to their housing conditions. The lawsuit
alleges that the City of Minneapolis discriminated on the basis of
"public assistance status" by failing to provide public housing
tenants the inspection, licensing, maintenance, and related
services that the City provides to tenants in privately-owned
rental dwellings. Minneapolis Public Housing Authority and
Community Housing Resources are also named defendants, with the
lawsuit alleging that they breached the terms of their leases with
tenants by failing to obtain licenses and inspections and respond
to maintenance requests. The lawsuit goes on to allege consumer
protection and housing law violations against all three
defendants.
According to Ms. Lowry's complaint, she has experienced a multitude
of dangerous and substandard conditions within her rental home,
including sewage backing up into her basement, dirt and water
intrusion and flooding, loose asbestos floor tile, and peeling
paint.
"Public housing tenants deserve decent, sanitary housing. They
deserve housing that complies with the law," said one of Ms.
Lowry's attorneys, Anna Prakash of Nichols Kaster, PLLP. "The
fundamental health and safety protections the law provides should
not be dependent on whether someone receives public assistance."
Ms. Lowry is represented by Anna P. Prakash and Nicole J. Schladt
of Nichols Kaster, PLLP; John R. Shoemaker and Paul F. Shoemaker of
Shoemaker & Shoemaker, PLLC; and Larry McDonough. The case is Lowry
v. City of Minneapolis, et. al, Case No. 27-CV-21-10928, and is
filed in Minnesota's Fourth Judicial District Court.
Media Contact:
Anna P. Prakash, Nichols Kaster, LLP, +1 (612) 256-3200,
aprakash@nka.com [GN]
MONRO INC: Kiaunis Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages & 401(k) Plans
-----------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD KIAUNIS, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONRO, INC. d/b/a MONRO AUTO SERVICE AND
TIRE CENTER, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00494-RBS-LRL (E.D. Va.,
September 3, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendants seeking all available relief under the Virginia Overtime
Wage Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a technician or
senior technician in Virginia since approximately 2010.
The Plaintiff asserts these claims:
-- Despite typically working approximately 45-50 hours each
week, the Defendant did pay him overtime premium for any hours
worked in excess of 40 in any given workweek;
-- The Defendant unlawfully deducted lunchtime from his
working hours, regardless of whether he was relieved of duty during
lunch or not, despite frequently working through "lunch breaks;"
-- The Defendant failed in its duty to the 401(k) Plan and its
participants and beneficiaries; and
-- The Defendant failed to avoid causing the 401(k) Plan to
engage in prohibited transactions.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint to recover unpaid overtime
damages, liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest to the fullest
extent permitted under the law, litigation costs, expenses, and
attorneys' fees. The Plaintiff also seeks payment to the 401(k)
Plan of all unpaid employee and employer matching contributions,
together with lost opportunity cost and lost profits to be paid
back to the Plaintiff's and the Virginia ERISA Subclass' plan
accounts.
Monro, Inc. provides automobile maintenance and repair services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Goodley, Esq.
Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq.
GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC
1650 Market St., Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 394-0541
E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com
ryan@gmlaborlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Head Injury Risk Class Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Nick Verderame, Esq., of Plattner Verderame PC, disclosed that a
proposed class action lawsuit filed against the National Collegiate
Athletic Association (NCAA) and University of Notre Dame highlights
the risks of brain injuries to athletes, right as high school and
college football season gets under way. Filed in Indiana federal
court, this suit claims that both the school and the NCAA failed to
warn student athletes of the long-term risks of head trauma
suffered during sports.
The lawsuit alleges that, up until 2010, both the school and the
NCAA concealed the fact that repeated head trauma could lead to
long-term and permanent brain injury, and failed to provide
athletes adequate warning and protection. Over decades, the
plaintiff claims, the university contributed to "an epidemic that
was slowly killing former college athletes."
Lead plaintiff Mary Elizabeth Morrison, whose husband is a former
Notre Dame football player, states that a regular season of play
was the equivalent of subjecting an athlete to hundreds of repeated
car accidents, yet the school and governing authorities allowed
them to do so anyway:
For decades, defendants NCAA and Notre Dame knew about the
debilitating long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related
injuries and sub-concussive injuries . . . that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of ‘amateur'
college football.
Morrison's husband Richard currently suffers from several physical
and mental conditions as a result of his time playing college
football, including memory loss, dementia, neurocognitive disorder,
and depression. The lawsuit targets Notre Dame and NCAA for
negligence and breach of contract, and aims to represent all
affected Notre Dame football players between 1952 and 2010.
Because the NCAA did not implement concussion protocol until 2010,
after a blow to the head players often returned to the field
without proper treatment. These repetitive and cumulative injuries
can lead to long-term injuries, like chronic traumatic
encephalopathy (CTE).
Brain injuries aren't just a football problem
Although the national conversation tends to center around football
players, anyone can suffer a brain injury. For example, a 2017
study showed that high school female soccer players had a
significantly higher concussion rate than any other school sport.
Boys baseball and girls volleyball also had the highest increase in
concussion rate during the study period. High level cheerleading
also accounts for a variety of head and neck injuries.
The American Association of Neurological Surgeons reports the
following sports and recreational activities as contributing to the
highest number of head and brain injuries treated in U.S.
hospitals:
Cycling:64,411
Football:51,892
Playground Equipment:38,915
Basketball:38,898
Exercise & Equipment: 37,045
Powered Recreational Vehicles: 30,222
Soccer:26,955
Baseball and Softball:24,516
Rugby/Lacrosse:10,901
Skateboards:10,573
Trampolines:8,956
Hockey:7,668
Skating:7,143
Golf:6,357
Horseback Riding:6,141
Why are concussions so dangerous?
A concussion is a type of traumatic brain injury (TBI) caused by a
blow, bump, or hit to the head. Any jolt to the head or body that
causes the brain to bounce around can cause a TBI. One of the many
myths surrounding concussions is that they cause loss of
consciousness -- this is untrue. In fact, the CDC reports most
concussions occur without loss of consciousness. Further, athletes
who have suffered one concussion are more at risk to suffer
another.
Repeated impact to the head can lead to more severe concussion and
TBI symptoms, as well as ongoing health issues like problems with
concentration, memory, balance skills, and headaches. Scientists
are also studying the link between CTE and traumatic brain
injuries. CTE is a brain disease that affects how the brain works,
and symptoms tend to be similar to those with Alzheimer's or
Parkinson's. However, CTE can only be diagnosed post-mortem, so
much more research is needed.
What are the signs and symptoms of a concussion?
The symptoms of a brain injury may show up immediately following
the injury, or can take several days. This is why, if an athlete
experiences a blow or jolt to the head or body, they should be
taken out of play and returned only after a professional
evaluation. Warning signs of a concussion include:
Headache
Nausea or vomiting
Loss of consciousness, even briefly
Dizziness or balance problems
Blurry or double vision
Light or noise sensitivity
Confusion
Concentration or memory problems
Can't recall events immediately prior to or after injury
If an athlete shows serious danger signs like one pupil larger than
the other, slurred speech, seizures, overly drowsy, or becomes weak
or loses coordination, they should receive medical attention as
soon as possible.
What is second impact syndrome?
Second impact syndrome (SIS) is a rare but potentially fatal
condition that can happen when an athlete suffers a second brain
injury before fully recovering from the first. Although researchers
are not clear on exactly why SIS occurs in some people and not
others, the NCBI reports that this "catastrophic injury results
from the dysfunctional cerebral blood flow autoregulation leading
to an increase in intracranial pressure." This pressure can be
deadly if not treated immediately.
The NCBI describes as an example the case of an athlete returning
to practice five days after an initial concussion. Although he had
a normal CT scan, he complained of persistent headaches. After a
hit at practice one day later, he collapsed after complaining of
more headaches and being unable to feel his legs. Another CT scan
showed subdural hematomas and other brain injuries.
The organization recommends, "Parents and athletes should be
educated on the potential complications of a concussion, symptoms,
and an expected time course for recovery. Included in this would be
discussing the potential problems related to returning to play too
soon, including prolonged recovery, persistent symptoms, and a
second impact syndrome." [GN]
NATIONAL WATERPROOFING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Harris Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DARWIN HARRIS; JESSIE BLACKWELL; and JASON MCCOY, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL
WATERPROOFING & ROOFING, LLC; and KIRK POTEET, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-01537-SPL (D. Ariz., Sept. 9, 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 Defendant as laborer.
NATIONAL WATERPROOFING & ROOFING, LLC installs roofing systems,
re-roof existing buildings, and provides waterproofing services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Courtney Lowery, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
E-mail: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com
NCAA: Former Notre Dame Footballer Sues Over Head Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------
Marek Mazurek at South Bend Tribune reports that a former
University of Notre Dame football defensive lineman who played on
the 1988 championship team recently filed a class action lawsuit
accusing the school and the NCAA of failing to warn players about
the dangers of concussions.
The suit, filed by Richard Morrison last month, alleges Notre Dame
and the NCAA "recklessly disregarded" information related to the
medical dangers of concussions and head injuries to "protect the
very profitable business of 'amateur' college football."
Morrison played nose tackle for Notre Dame from 1985 to 1988 and
was a defensive lineman on the 1988 national championship team. He
and his wife live in Virginia, per court filings.
According to the suit, Morrison now suffers from short-term memory
loss, emotional instability, depression, speech difficulty,
insomnia, tinnitus, major neurocognitive disorder and dementia,
among other conditions, as a result of head injuries suffered while
playing football.
The suit alleges both Notre Dame and the NCAA had a duty to educate
players about the long-term effects of concussions, but failed to
warn athletes about those risks and failed to monitor their health
both during and after games.
Morrison sites a number of studies, from as early as 1905 to the
2000s, arguing the NCAA and Notre Dame should have been aware of
the negative long-term effects of head injuries and taken steps to
protect players.
During a typical football season, college athletes subject
themselves to the "equivalent of repeated car accidents," the suit
says. Concussions and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, commonly
known as CTE, can cause long-term brain damage, behavioral issue
and Parkinson's disease.
"While the NCAA and Notre Dame knew of the harmful effects of [head
injuries] on athletes for decades, they ignored these facts and
failed to institute any meaningful methods of warning and/or
protecting the athletes," the suit says. "For defendants, the
continued expansion and operation of college football was simply
too profitable to put at risk."
Attempts to reach Morrison were unsuccessful and attorneys
representing him in the lawsuit did not return multiple requests
for interviews.
Notre Dame spokesman Dennis Brown said the university would not
comment until it had been served with the lawsuit. Messages and
phone calls to the NCAA were not returned.
Neither the NCAA nor Notre Dame have filed responses to Morrison's
complaint in court.
The suit is one of several complaints that have been filed in
recent years against universities and the NCAA for
concussion-related injuries.
In 2016, a number of similar concussion lawsuits consolidated and
reached a $75 million settlement with the NCAA. The NCAA is putting
the vast majority of that money toward concussion screenings and
diagnoses for former college athletes and donating $5 million for
research. That settlement did not require the NCAA to admit
wrongdoing and allows other class action suits against the
organization and individual schools.
In 2017, a pair of former Purdue University football players sued
the NCAA and the Big Ten conference and are currently seeking to
make the proceedings a class action lawsuit open to other former
Boilermakers.
The first major concussion-related lawsuit filed on behalf of a
former college athlete to make it to trial also happened in 2017,
though the widow of a former University of Texas football player
settled with the NCAA on the third day of the trial.
Notre Dame has previously reckoned with concussions when former
football star and university trustee Dave Duerson was posthumously
diagnosed with CTE by Boston University researches after he shot
and killed himself in 2011. [GN]
NCAA: Judge Allows HBCU Class-Action Lawsuit to Move Forward
------------------------------------------------------------
hbcugameday.com reports that a U.S. District Court handed a first
victory to a group of Black student-athletes at Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCU) seeking to change NCAA rules that
they claim intentionally discriminate against and punish them.
The case, filed in 2020, claims that the NCAA's Academic
Performance Program (APP) - ostensibly designed to improve
student-athlete academic performance - in fact undermines the HBCU
mission to serve the historically underserved Black community,
including Black student-athletes. It further alleges that the NCAA
knew the APP was racially discriminatory but enacted and enforced
it anyway.
On Sept. 14, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Young denied the
NCAA's motion to dismiss the suit in part, ruling that the claims
of two former student-athletes could move forward. If the case is
certified by the court as a class action, the case would represent
the hundreds of HBCU student-athletes who have been negatively
impacted by the program.
"We are gratified and encouraged that the court sees the importance
of this issue and the APP's negative effects on Black
student-athletes," said Elizabeth Fegan, founding partner and
managing member of FeganScott. "The NCAA's blunt application of the
APP has detrimentally impacted the academic and athletic careers of
many student athletes. We look forward to presenting the evidence
to the court."
The suit alleges that the APP applies post-season bans that deny
players opportunity to compete with their peers and receive all the
privileges, accolades and media coverage that come with post-season
play, which may affect their career trajectories and potentially
lucrative post-college benefits. The suit maintains that the bans
interfere with the contracts formed between institutions and their
athletes, arguing that players are prevented from receiving the
full benefits of their contracts and the athletes and schools
cannot access greater publicity and revenue from highly publicized
events. HBCU teams are 43 times more likely to receive such bans
than teams at other, predominantly white institutions.
According to the 20-page ruling, plaintiffs Troyce Manassa and
Austin Dasent have plausibly alleged unequal treatment and the
injuries caused by the NCAA's intentionally-created unequal system.
Beyond the injuries caused by the APP system and denial of the
privileges and benefits enjoyed by their peers and predominantly
white institutions, and unequal access to career, scouting, and
other opportunities, the plaintiffs also allege mental and
emotional harm, humiliation, embarrassment and degradation. The
Court further ruled that, at this stage, the Plaintiffs' claims
should not be barred as untimely because they allege they did not
discover the discriminatory purpose of the APP until just before
filing suit.
"We missed out on post-season opportunities because of a system
that the NCAA knew would punish Black student-athletes," said
Troyce Manassa, plaintiff and former guard for the Savannah State
University men's basketball team. "The NCAA is robbing
student-athletes at HBCUs of the opportunities to experience what
every college athlete strives for when they join a Division 1
school as a student-athlete: playing in post-season championship
games and tournaments."
"The NCAA knew that the APP would negatively affect Black student
athletes at HBCUs," said Austin Dasent, plaintiff and a former
member of the Savannah State University men's basketball team. "You
can't keep moving the goal posts and call it reform when, at the
end of the day, Black student-athletes at HBCUs are not given the
same tools and opportunities to succeed even before we hit the
fields and courts."
Although claims will be allowed to progress for Manassa and Dasent,
the court did dismiss claims against NCAA's Board of Directors and
the NCAA's Division I Board of Directors.
"As we've seen from the June ruling in NCAA v. Alston, the NCAA is
not above the law, nor is it above its history of racial bias,"
said Je Yon Jung, senior attorney at May Lightfoot Law and
co-counsel on the case. "The time is long overdue to expose the
history and actions of the NCAA to continue to segregate black
student athletes at HBCUs. We cannot forget that more than 80% of
postseason bans go to HBCUs. You don't get that level of impact by
accident. "
The suit seeks compensation and punitive damages on behalf of all
Black student-athletes who participated in Division I NCAA sports
at HBCUs from 2010 to present and who were injured through the
implementation of the APP program.[GN]
NEW ORLEANS, LA: November 2 Hearing in Landfill Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Bagneris Firm disclosed that this case is entitled John
Johnson, et al. versus Orleans Parish School Board, et al., Civil
District Court, No. 93-14333 and consolidated cases, Division "J".
This case involves a neighborhood located in the 9th ward of New
Orleans that was built atop a toxic waste dump. The federal
government confirmed the danger posed by the neighborhood from
exposure to 149 contaminants, including 49 which caused cancer, in
1994 when it declared the community a Superfund site (one of the
most contaminated sites in the United States.) The residents, led
by Attorney Suzette Bagneris, filed a lawsuit against the City of
New Orleans, Housing Authority of New Orleans (and its insurers),
and Orleans Parish School Board who developed homes, an elementary
school, a public housing development, housing for the elderly, and
businesses atop the landfill with the knowledge that the soil was
contaminated.
In 2006, former Judge Nadine Ramsey ruled in their favor after a
very extension trial and order the City, the School Board, HANO,
and four insurers of the housing authority to pay the residents,
school children, school employees, and business owners for
emotional distress and property damages. Judge Ramsey blasted the
city for lying to the residents and doing "virtually nothing to
address the fact that there are citizens of this city, in
particular, children, the most vulnerable of the population, living
on a toxic waste dump," Ramsey wrote. It was not the plaintiffs who
developed low-income housing and a school on a former landfill.
They were given the promise of the American Dream of homeownership
wrapped in a poisonous box.
After countless appeals by the Defendants, the insurers were able
to get a ruling decreasing the amount of available insurance for
HANO's insurance from an unlimited pot to only $14 million. The $14
million was disbursed using guidelines set by the Court (then Judge
Tiffany Chase).
For years, the Plaintiffs' Counsel has been trying to chase down
the remainder of the money. The City and OPSB have never paid a
dime. On November 2, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., Judge D. Nicole Sheppard,
the Judge who is now presiding over this Class Action, will
consider a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Plaintiffs to
get this matter moving towards a resolution. You are not required
to attend the hearing. [GN]
NEW YORK TIMES: Court Hears Renewal Fraud Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Inner City Press reports that Maribel Moses sued The New York Times
for automatic renewal fraud, in a then-putative class actions.
On September 10 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York Judge Ronnie Abrams held a hearing on final approval of
class action settlement. Inner City Press covered it.
Most of the questioning was into attorneys' fees, and the incentive
award of $5000 for the named plaintiff.
Alan Isaacson, characterized by the parties as a serial objector,
said she should not be deemed an adequate class representative"
after she asked for $5000.
But, the opposition says, Isaacson had just this argument denied by
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 2019.
Judge Abrams said the settlement, fees and incentive award are
fair.
The case is Moses v. The New York Times Company, 20-cv-4658
(Abrams) [GN]
NEW YORK, NY: Averts Class Action Over Foster Care System
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Fitzgerald, writing for The Imprint, reports that a federal
judge has denied the latest attempt by a pioneering legal advocate
for foster children to proceed with a class-action lawsuit against
New York City.
In a Sept. 3 decision, Judge Kimba Wood of the Southern District
Court of New York did not rule on the merits of the long-running
case alleging that children taken from their parents had been
poorly cared for and had spent too long in foster care.
But she sided with the city and state in denying "class
certification" to the group of 19 youth, concluding that the
litigators representing the foster children had not demonstrated
common "questions of law or fact" in their struggles, or that their
challenges were typical among the more than 7,000 kids in city
foster care.
She also noted plaintiffs hadn't demonstrated which policy or
institutions were most clearly responsible for what they faced in
foster care.
"Countless decisions by numerous stakeholders -- children, parents,
advocates, and judges, to name a few -- make each child's case
unique," the judge wrote. She added that an expert report on the
foster care system's deficiencies presented by the plaintiffs
offered only "weak evidence" that the children had all "suffered
the same injury." [GN]
NEW YORK, NY: Court Denies Elisa W.'s Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELISA W., et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-5273 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Kimba M. Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York denied:
(i) a Daubert motion filed by the City Defendants seeking to
exclude the testimony of the Plaintiffs' expert witness,
and
(ii) a renewed motion by the Plaintiffs for class
certification.
Background
The action was brought in 2015 on behalf of 19 children in foster
care in New York City. The Plaintiffs assert a range of
constitutional and statutory claims against both New York City and
the State of New York, based on alleged systemic failures in the
New York City foster care system, including a failure to exercise
proper oversight over the agencies responsible for the day-to-day
care of children.
The mission of the New York City Administration for Children's
Service ("ACS") is to "protect and promote the safety and
well-being of New York City's children, young people, families, and
communities by providing excellent child welfare, juvenile justice,
and early care and education services." ACS receives reports of
maltreatment or suspected abuse from a statewide reporting system
and is required to investigate whether a child may safely remain in
the care of their parents. In conducting this safety assessment,
ACS balances the risks posed to the child by their parents against
the harm of being removed from the home.
New York City's foster care system is a complex operation involving
state, city, and private actors. Broadly speaking, the New York
State foster care system is supervised by the State but run
locally. At the state level, the Division of Child Welfare and
Community Services at the New York State Office of Children and
Family Services ("OCFS") is responsible for the oversight of child
welfare services. At the local level, services are administered by
departments of social services. In New York City, that local
department is ACS. Children in New York City foster care are thus
placed in the custody of the Commissioner of ACS.
There is little dispute that the foster care system faces
challenges, which include delays in achieving permanency. In recent
years, however, the New York City foster care system has improved
greatly. Between 1992 and 2016, the number of children in the
foster care system declined by nearly 80%. OCFS and ACS, in search
of further improvements, also continue to develop new initiatives
and programs.
When ACS determines that intervention is necessary to protect a
child, it initiates a child protective proceeding in New York State
Family Court. That court has original jurisdiction over abuse and
neglect proceedings. At a preliminary hearing, the family court
determines whether removal of a child is necessary; if such a
determination is made, the child may be placed in the custody of
ACS or in the care of a relative or other suitable person.
The named Plaintiffs in the case are 19 children, who were selected
by counsel after a public outreach program to those "who have faced
problems with the NYC foster care system." The Plaintiffs entered
the foster care system between 2002 and 2015 and were cared for by
11 of the 26 agencies under contract with ACS.
The Plaintiffs filed the initial Complaint on July 8, 2015, and the
Amended Complaint on Dec. 29, 2015. The Amended Complaint asserts
several causes of action against the City of New York, ACS, and the
Commissioner of ACS, in her official capacity ("City Defendants"),
as well as against the State of New York, OCFS, and the
Commissioner of OCFS, in her official capacity ("State
Defendants").
Specifically, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs
have been, and are at risk of being deprived of constitutional
rights protected by the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution; that City Defendants' actions
constitute a pattern or practice of depriving Plaintiffs of various
rights conferred upon them by the Adoption Assistance and Child
Welfare Act of 1980, as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families
Act of 1997; that City Defendants' actions constitute a deprivation
of rights conferred on Plaintiffs by various provisions of the New
York State Social Services Law and regulations adopted thereto; and
that City Defendants have breached and failed to enforce contracts
between ACS and Contract Agencies. At bottom, the Plaintiffs assert
that children in foster care in New York City are harmed by
systemic deficiencies, including failures by OCFS and ACS to
perform their respective oversight functions, and to enforce the
terms of the agreements between ACS and the Contract Agencies.
The Plaintiffs first moved for class certification toward the end
of 2015, seeking to certify a class consisting of "children who are
now or will be in the foster care custody of the Commissioner of
New York City's Administration for Children's Services." On Sept.
27, 2016, the motion was denied by Chief Judge Swain, who held that
the Plaintiffs had not met their burden to demonstrate that each of
the requirements of Rule 23 had been satisfied. Accordingly, class
certification was denied, "without prejudice to renewal on an
evidentiary record that demonstrates satisfaction of the
requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) as to both the broad class
and appropriate subclasses."
Following the Sept. 27, 2016 Order, the parties engaged in fact and
expert discovery for approximately two and a half years. On July
30, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class
certification, seeking to certify a class of "children who are now
will be in the foster care custody of the Commissioner of ACS," as
well as two subclasses consisting of (1) "all children who have
been in ACS custody for more than two years and whose cases require
'special scrutiny' pursuant to ACS policy," and (2) "all children
for whom Contract Agencies failed to assess and document compelling
reasons every three months to justify the decision not to file a
termination of parental rights ('TPR') petition after the children
had been in care for 15 of the prior 22 months." After further
discovery, City and State Defendants filed opposition briefs on
Aug. 31, 2020 and September 21, respectively.
On March 21, 2021, leave was granted for Brooklyn Defender
Services, The Bronx Defenders, Center for Family Representation
Inc., and Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem ("Parent
Advocates"), to file an amicus curiae brief in opposition to the
Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. The Parent
Advocates' brief was filed on March 22, 2021. The Plaintiffs then
filed a reply in support of class certification on April 1, 2021,
and City and State Defendants each filed a surreply on April 8,
2021.
In tandem with the briefing on class certification, the City
Defendants brought a challenge to the admissibility of an expert
report by the Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Caroline Long. Dr. Long
evaluated the case files of the 19 named Plaintiffs and concluded
that each was subjected to the same six "policy and practice
departures" -- namely, (1) failure to consider the child's and
agency's respective characteristics during placement; (2) failure
to engage in "concurrent planning" (which refers to a case worker
developing a secondary permanency plan while advancing the child's
primary permanency goal); (3) failure to ensure that Contract
Agencies provide and monitor services for birth parents and
caretakers; (4) failure to provide adequate and timely case
documentation; (5) failure to give "special scrutiny" to foster in
children in care for more than two years; and (6) failure to ensure
that Contract Agencies comply with ACS' policies regarding
permanency.
On Jan. 11, 2021, the City Defendants filed a motion, pursuant to
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), to
exclude the Long Report. On Feb. 23, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed an
opposition. On March 3, 2021, the City Defendants filed a reply.
Discussion
I. City Defendants' Motion
In their Daubert motion, the City Defendants seek the exclusion of
the Long Report and of any testimony by Dr. Long and her team. The
City Defendants do not argue that Dr. Long is not qualified in the
field of social work, nor do they contend that her opinions would
not be relevant or would not assist the Court. Rather, the City
Defendants argue that the Long Report is not reliable, because it
failed to adhere to the principles of the research methodology that
Dr. Long chose to use -- Grounded Theory.
These arguments, however, are unavailing, Judge Wood opines. She
holds that the fact that Dr. Long was retained to explore a
question -- whether or not there were case practice departures --
does not suggest that she embarked on her evaluation simply to
confirm a hypothesis. There is no evidence that Dr. Long did not
conduct her evaluation, as Grounded Theory demands, with an
open-minded approach that does not "force data into theoretical
accounts."
Judge Wood also finds that the Long Report adhered to the central
tenets of Grounded Theory, reflects an exercise of the "constant
comparative method" that the theory calls for, and should not be
excluded pursuant to Rule 702 and Daubert. She finds that Dr. Long
and her team went "line by line" through the case files, took
written notes as to instances that they considered to be case
practice departures, reviewed and discussed their notes
collectively, and identified "themes" that, in Dr. Long's opinion,
connected the individual case departures.
Lastly, City Defendants argue that the Long Report does not account
for alternative explanations for why case practice departures may
have occurred in a given child's case. Specifically, Dr. Long did
not consider the major role occupied by the New York State Family
Court system with respect to each child's case, and the fact that
this system is often the cause for delays in permanency. Judge Wood
opines that this flaw does not render the Long Report inadmissible.
It does, however, detract significantly from the weight to be given
to the Long Report. Because the Report ignored a key aspect of the
foster care system, the Judge holds that it does not constitute
strong evidence that there are common factors that result in delays
to permanency or departures from ACS policy or practice.
II. Renewed Motion for Class Certification
The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of "children who are now
will be in the foster care custody of the Commissioner of ACS."
Judge Wood finds that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden to
demonstrate that there are questions of law or fact common to the
class, nor have they made an adequate showing that the claims of
the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class.
Accordingly, the Judge finds that the commonality and typicality
requirements of Rule 23(a) have not been met. Consequently, she
need not decide whether the Plaintiffs have satisfied the remaining
requirements of Rule 23(a) and the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2).
Judge Wood notes that it goes without saying that any allegations
regarding potential harm to children in foster care are of grave
concern. The question, however, is whether the named Plaintiffs
have met their burden to demonstrate (among other things) that
there are questions of law or fact common to a class of all
children who are or will be in the foster care system of New York
City, and that the named Plaintiffs are typical representatives of
such a broad class. Because Judge Wood finds that the Plaintiffs
have not offered sufficient evidence to satisfy that burden, the
motion for class certification will be denied.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Judge Wood denied the two motions pending
before the Court: The City Defendants' Daubert motion seeking to
exclude the testimony of the Plaintiffs' expert witness, and the
Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification.
The parties were to file a joint letter addressing the next steps
in the litigation on Sept. 13, 2021. The Clerk of Court is
respectfully directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 504,
511, and 515.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 3, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4me2ddbz from Leagle.com.
NORTH COAST: Bryant Bid for Conditional Certification Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TENITA BRYANT, et al., v.
NORTH COAST NATURAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01075-CAB
(N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Christopher A. Boyko entered an order
granting in part the Plaintiffs' renewed motion to conditionally
certify a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action defined
as follows:
"All current and former employees of Defendants who were
classified as salaried employees for the Collinwood Hemp
Venture Employers as executive-level employees in Ohio in any
workweek in the past three years ("FLSA Salaried Class");"
and
"All current and former employees of Defendants who were
classified as hourly employees for the Collinwood Hemp
Venture Employers as manufacturing workers (or an equivalent
position) in Ohio in any workweek in the past three years
("FLSA Hourly Class").
However, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' request for Court-
authorized notice and declines to approve the Notice and
Consent Form as currently drafted.
The Court orders Plaintiffs to submit an amended proposed Notice
and Consent Form consistent with the above-noted revisions and
directives within two weeks of receipt of this Order.
While Plaintiffs have met their burden under the lenient standard
applicable to the notification phase, the Court will revisit the
"similarly situated" requirement once the opt-in forms are
submitted. If the Claimants are not similarly situated after
further discovery, the Court will decertify the Class and the
Opt-in Plaintiffs will be dismissed without prejudice.
Beginning January 1, 2019, the Defendants North Coast Natural
Solutions, LLC; North Coast 5 Natural Solutions Corporation; Level
5 Global International Holdings Corporation; Tierney Williams; Dr.
Jenny Enterprises, LLC; Vital Life Institute, LLC; Jenny P.
Wilkins; and William M. Wilkins hired Plaintiffs to work in a
facility for the production of industrial hemp located at 12735
Kirby Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44108. The Plaintiffs were never
paid.
The Plaintiffs assert unpaid minimum wage claims under both the
FLSA and Ohio law on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
employees. 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The FLSA requires Defendants
to pay their non-exempt employees minimum wages.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3i3yf8P at no extra charge.[CC]
NORTHAMPTON RESTAURANTS: FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Worker Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN E. CARROLL,
GERALDINE P. CORRIGAN, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly-Situated, v. NORTHAMPTON RESTAURANTS, INC., d/b/a
ABERDEEN BARN STEAKHOUSE, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00115-AWA-RJK
(E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
conditionally certifying the following class of putative Opt-In
Plaintiffs, in accordance with Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA):
"All persons who currently work or formerly worked at the
Aberdeen Barn Steakhouse for Northampton Restaurants, Inc. as
servers (specifically as waiters, waitresses, bartenders,
hosts, hostesses, and bussers) at any time from September
2018 to June 2021."
In addition to conditionally certifying this proposed class, the
Plaintiffs request the Court's assistance in notifying putative
Opt-In Plaintiffs of their right to join this action in accordance
with 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
The Plaintiffs challenge the Defendants' unlawful, common policy
and practice which results in servers not receiving all of their
tips and not being paid the required minimum wage in violation of
29 U.S.C. section 206(a).
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hJkKe7
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christian L. Connell, Esq.
CHRISTIAN L. CONNELL, P.C.
555 East Main Street, Suite 1102
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: (757) 533-6500
Facsimile: (757) 299-4770
E-mail: christian.connell@outlook.com
NT STOLEN: Class Action to Continue Despite Redress Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Smit at nit.com.au reports that the class action launched on
behalf of Northern Territory Stolen Generation survivors will
continue, despite the announcement of the Territories Redress
Scheme.
Aboriginal leader, Nyunggai Warren Mundine is the director of
Litigation Lending Services (LLS) who are supporting the lawsuit.
"We love it that that the government has come and made this
redress, but for us it is not the full redress because it is only
for people who are living now," Mundine said.
"We believe that people have passed away, their family should also
be part of the redress, so we will be looking at continuing our
action until everyone who should be compensated and should be
looked after [has been]."
The class action is seeking compensation for members for the Stolen
Generation in the Northern Territory for their removal from their
families between 1910 and the 1970's.
"I gotta say, I think I'm a big, hairy man who's very stoic, but
when I was up in the Northern Territory and listening to the
lawyers do the interviews [with victims], I was brought to tears .
. . . the stories were horrific," he said.
He said though the Redress Scheme is a step in the right direction,
it doesn't cast a wide enough net.
"We're feeling that it was a good gesture, and I'm really happy
that those living people are gonna get money through this redress,"
he said
"You've got to praise the government for this because even though
it was probably 50-years a bit behind the eight ball - they got
there.
"But at the same time, it's not full justice for these people."
The Redress Scheme offers a one-off $70 000 payment to living
members of the Stolen Generation, along with the opportunity to
tell their story in full and receive a personal apology from the
Federal Government.
Mundine said it's not just those still living that were affected by
the forced removals, the families of survivors of the Stolen
Generation who passed away before the Redress Scheme was introduced
still deserve to be compensated for the ongoing impact of the
intergenerational trauma.
"It's about making sure that that everyone was there that was
affected by this policy are all looked after," he said.
"So we've got [compensation for] the living Stolen Generation
people and that's great, but we need to look at the people who have
passed away, and their families."
He said that though no compensation will ever truly be enough, he
will continue to fight for mob.
"To me this is very personal; even though none of my family had
been taken away. It is about the opportunities, the lives that
these people could have had, that were denied by this policy," he
said.
"We say you can never really give true justice back to these
people, but we're sure going to fight to see that they get the
justice they deserve."
Shine Lawyers are leading the class action, however are not able to
comment at this time. [GN]
NVIDIA CORPORATION: Tobias Complaint Dismissed w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTINA TOBIAS, ANTHONY
BRIGGS, ANN MACDONALD and DAVID CALDER, individually and on v.
NVIDIA CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-06081-LHK (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh entered an order granting with leave to
amend motion to dismiss complaint.
The Court said, "The Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I and II
of Plaintiffs' complaint is granted with leave to amend. Should
Plaintiffs choose to file an amended complaint, they must do so
within 30 days of this Order. Failure to do so, or failure to cure
the deficiencies identified in this Order and in Defendants' motion
to dismiss, will result in dismissal of the Plaintiffs' deficient
claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs may not add new claims or parties
without a stipulation or leave of the Court. If Plaintiffs choose
to file an amended complaint, Plaintiffs must also file a redlined
version of the amended complaint identifying the amendments."
Nvidia Corporation is an American multinational technology company
incorporated in Delaware and based in Santa Clara, California. It
designs graphics processing units for the gaming and professional
markets, as well as system on a chip units for the mobile computing
and automotive market.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Eq65OQ at no extra charge.[CC]
NVR INC: Hughes Seeks Loan Processors' Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOEL HUGHES, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NVR, INC. and NVR MORTGAGE
FINANCE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01018 (E.D. Va.,
September 3, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a loan processor
from approximately May 2019 to August 2020 in Greenville, South
Carolina.
The Plaintiff claims that they were required by the Defendants to
work overtime, but did not compensate them for all hours worked.
The Defendants purportedly instructed them to record only 40 hours
per week on their timesheets, even when they worked more. Although
the Defendants' management team pre-approved recording overtime
hours worked, the number o overtime hours approved was often
inadequate to cover all the overtime hours that the Defendants
required them to work, the Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff brings this collective action complaint to recover
unpaid overtime compensation against the Defendants. The Plaintiff
also seeks liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and other injunctive and equitable relief as the Court
shall deem just and proper.
NVR. Inc. operates in two business segments: homebuilding and
mortgage banking. NVR Mortgage Finance, Inc. operates branches in
the metropolitan areas in which NVR has homebuilding operations.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia St., Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Tel: (804) 648-4848
Fax: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: harris@butlerwood.com
zev@butlerwood.com
craig@butlerwood.com
- and –
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
981 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Tel: (561) 447-8888
Fax: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
lpardell@shavitzlaw.com
- and –
Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
Kayla M. Kienzle, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
80 South 8th St., Suite 4700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Tel: (612) 256-3200
Fax: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: fisher@nka.com
kkienzle@nka.com
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Deselms Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anita C. Deselms, as
Trustee of the Anita C. Deselms Living Trust, et al., v. Occidental
Petroleum Corporation; Anadarko Petroleum Corporation; Anadarko E&P
Onshore, LLC; Anadarko Oil & Gas,
LLC; Anadarko Land Corp., Case No. 2:19-cv-00243-NDF (D. Wyo.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the following class:
"All Owners of Class Minerals during the Class Period but
excluding any Owner who, during the Class Period, (i) was
a lessee of Class Minerals or (ii) had a Working Interest
in any of the Class Minerals other than those costs that
might be imposed under the provisions of Wyo. Stat. §30-5-
109 as it existed at the beginning of the Impacted Period
or as later amended;"
2. designating Anita C. Deselms, John C. Eklund, Jr., Justin
W. and Brandi J. Miller, Ron Rabou, and Russell I.
Williams, Jr. as the representatives of the Class; and
3. appointing Robert P. Schuster of Robert P. Schuster, P.C.
as lead counsel for the Class.
The Plaintiffs include Rabou Resources, LLC through its manager,
Ron Rabou; Gross-Wilkinson Ranch, LLC; J. Dennis A. Black and Karen
Black, husband and wife; Michael Powers, as Trustee of the J.
Michael Powers Revocable Trust UA Dated August 10, 1982; John G.
Williams and Theresa M. Williams, husband and wife; John Gilbert
Williams and Theresa M. Williams, as Trustees of the John & Theresa
Williams Trust dated July 18, 2019; Russell I. Williams, Jr., as
Trustee of the Russell I. Williams, Jr. Revocable Trust U/A dated
7/27/83; Phillip (Brock) Carl Williams, as Trustee of the Williams
Family Trust U/A dated 7/21/14; Jolene M. Simkins; Norma Jean
Smith, individually and as Trustee of the Smith Family Revocable
Trust Dated May 1, 2018; Richard Bagby and Tracy Bagby, husband and
wife; Benjaman D. Adkison and Kelli J. Adkison, husband and wife;
Phyllis A. Cooney, as Trustee of the Phyllis A. Cooney Trust U/A
dated September 22, 1995; John C. Eklund, Jr, as Trustee of the
John C. Eklund Revocable Trust UA April 25, 2011; Suzanne Lee
Eklund, as Trustee of the Suzanne Lee Eklund Revocable Trust UA
April 25, 2011; Justin W. Miller and Brandi J. Miller, husband and
wife; Val D. Eklund and Sharron R. Eklund, husband and wife; Mina
Bayne; Karen Leslie Bryant, individually and as Trustee of the
Karen Bryant Living Trust dated September 22, 2017; John K.
Marquardt, as Trustee of the John K. Marquardt Revocable Trust U/A
dated 5/1/08; Gust of Wind, LLC, a Nebraska limited liability
company; Party Vikings LLC, a Colorado limited liability company;
J&L Lerwick Limited Partnership; and Julie Jayne Goyen.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 13,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VODq4s
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert P. Schuster, Esq.
Bradley L. Booke, Esq.
ROBERT P. SCHUSTER P.C.
P.O. Box 13160
250 Veronica Lane, Suite 204
Jackson, WY 83002
Telephone: 307.732.7800
E-mail: bob@bobschuster.com
brad@bobschuster.com
- and -
Samuel Issacharoff, Esq.
40 Washington Square South
New York, NY 10012
Telephone: 212.998.6580
E-mail: si13@nyu.com
- and -
J.N. Murdock, Esq.
MURDOCK LAW FIRM, LLC
104 South Wolcott Street, Suite 800
Casper, WY 82601
Telephone: (307) 235-0480
E-mail: jnmurdock@murdocklawfirm.com
- and -
Laurence O. Masson, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF
LAURENCE O. MASSON
2625 Alcatraz Avenue, # 206
Berkeley, CA 94705-2702
Telephone: (510) 735-9691
E-mail: lomlex@gmail.com
- and -
Thomas N. Long, Esq.
Kris C. Koski, Esq.
Justin A. Daraie, Esq.
LONG REIMER WINEGAR LLP
P.O. Box 87
2120 Carey Ave., Suite 300
Cheyenne, WY 82003
Telephone: (307) 635-0710
Facsimile: 307.635.0413
E-mail: tlong@lrw-law.com
kkoski@lrw-law.com
jdaraie@lrw-law.com
- and -
Cody l. Balzer, Esq.
BALZER LAW FIRM, P.C.
1302 Cleveland Avenue
Loveland, Co 80537
Telephone: 970.203.1515
E-mail: cody@balzerlaw.com
OMNICARE INC: Settlement Deal in Davis Suit Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL DAVIS, individually
and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v.
OMNICARE, INC., et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00142-REW-MAS (E.D. Ky.),
the Hon. Judge Robert E. Wir entered an order
1. granting the parties joint bid for final certification of
the Rule 23 class and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective, and final approval of the proposed settlement
agreement;
2. approving the settlement agreement;
3. finally certifying the provisionally certified Kentucky
class pursuant to Federal Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for purposes of
settlement;
4. finally certifying the conditionally certified FLSA
collective is now finally certified pursuantto 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b), for purposes of settlement; and
5. approving the attorney fees, costs and expenses, claims
administration expenses, and service award provided for in
the proposed agreement per the terms of the Settlement
Agreement and the substantiating documentation; and
6. approving the cy pres beneficiary.
The Court said, "Final certification is not contested. The Parties
jointly stipulate for settlement purposes that Plaintiffs and
Opt-in Plaintiffs are similarly situated because "they had
substantially similar job requirements, worked for Omnicare in
Kentucky via the same courier company, Act Fast, and were all
classified as independent contractors and required to perform work
without overtime compensation and without being reimbursed for all
work expenses. Moreover, they were all subject to the same (or
similar) allegedly unlawful payroll deductions." For the motion
stated reasons, and as discussed previously, the Plaintiffs here
suffered from the same alleged FLSA-violating policies and are
therefore similarly situated, thus warranting final certification
at step two. See Davis, 2021 WL 1214501 (discussing fact that
members suffer from the same alleged FLSA-violating policies of
non-payment of overtime compensation, non-payment of qualifying
reimbursements, and payroll deductions). Accordingly, final
certification of the proposed collective is granted. The proposed
settlement also meets the requirements set by the Class Action
Fairness Act."
Davis initiated this putative collective and class action against
Defendant Omnicare, Inc. and three of its subsidiary pharmacies.
Davis sues on behalf of himself and others that performed delivery
or dispatch services for Defendants.
Omnicare is an American company working in the health care
industry. It was established in April 1981 as a spinoff of
healthcare businesses from Chemed and W. R. Grace and Company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zmp0Gu at no extra charge.[CC]
OREGON MUTUAL: Dakota Ventures Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Dakota Ventures, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled DAKOTA VENTURES, LLC, d/b/a KOKOPELLI
GRILL and COYOTE BBQ PUB, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OREGON MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00630-HZ, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Oregon, Portland.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 26, 2021, Judge
Marco A. Hernandez of the District of Oregon dismissed with
prejudice the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff Dakota Ventures filed this class action for breach of
contract and declaratory relief against Defendant Oregon Mutual
alleging that Defendant breached its insurance contract with
Plaintiff when it denied coverage for losses stemming from the
COVID-19 pandemic.
The Plaintiff operates two restaurants in Port Angeles, Washington.
It opened Kokopelli Grill in 2009 and opened Coyote BBQ Pub in
2015. The Plaintiff purchased a "Business Owner's Protector Policy"
for both businesses from the Defendant. The Policy covers "direct
physical loss or damage to Covered Property" and "direct physical
loss of or damage to property" caused by "risks of direct physical
loss."
In late February 2020, Washington Governor Inslee declared a State
of Emergency statewide. In March 2020, Governor Inslee issued an
executive order that prohibited people from gathering in any public
venue for the purpose of consuming food and beverages. As a result,
the Plaintiff suspended indoor dining services and reduced its
operations at both restaurants. The Plaintiff submitted an
insurance claim to the Defendant to recover its financial losses
caused by the Governor's orders and the resulting reduced business
operations. The same day, the Defendant denied coverage because it
found that no covered cause of loss had occurred that triggered
coverage under the Policy's provisions. The lawsuit followed.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the case dismissal order
entered by Judge Hernandez.
The appellate case is captioned as Dakota Ventures, LLC v. Oregon
Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 21-35758, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Sep. 9, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Dakota Ventures, LLC Mediation Questionnaire was
due Sep. 16, 2021;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by Oct. 8, 2021;
-- Transcript is due on Nov. 8, 2021;
-- Appellant Dakota Ventures, LLC opening brief is due on Dec.
17, 2021;
-- Appellee Oregon Mutual Insurance Company answering brief is
due on Jan. 18, 2022; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant DAKOTA VENTURES, LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, DBA Coyote BBQ Pub, DBA
Kokopelli Grill, is represented by:
Freya Kirsten Bowen, Esq.
Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
Timothy Burns, Esq.
BURNS BOWEN BAIR, LLP
10 E Doty Street, Suite 600
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 286-2037
- and -
Douglas A. Daniels, Esq.
DANIELS & TREDENNICK PLLC
6363 Woodway, Suite 700
Houston, TX 77057
Telephone: (713) 917-0024
- and -
Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Mark Lanier, Esq.
THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
10940 W. Sam Houston Parkway N., Suite 100
Houston, TX 77064
- and -
Steve Douglas Larson, Esq.
Jennifer S. Wagner, Esq.
STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER, P.C.
209 S.W. Oak Street
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 227-1600
E-mail: slarson@stollberne.com
Defendant-Appellee OREGON MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY is represented
by:
Jay William Beattie, Esq.
LINDSAY HART NEIL & WEIGLER, LLP
1300 SW Fifth Avenue
Portland, OR 97201
Telephone: (503) 226-7677
E-mail: jbeattie@lindsayhart.com
- and -
Jennifer Page Dinning, Esq.
SOHA & LANG, PS
1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 624-1800
E-mail: dinning@sohalang.com
- and -
Clarke Benbow Holland, Esq.
PACIFIC LAW PARTNERS, LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 950
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (510) 841-7777
E-mail: cholland@plawp.com
OWN USA: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OWN USA Inc. The case
is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. OWN USA Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-07692
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.[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
PARADIES SHOPS: Data Breach Caused Huge Damages, Lawsuit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bradley-Smith at databreaches.net reports that Airport store
operator, Paradies Shops LLC, which runs more than 850 retail and
170 restaurant locations in more than 100 airports across the
United States, was negligent with employee data and caused huge
damages to more than 76,000 employees after a 2020 data breach, a
new class action lawsuit alleges.
Ramirez, and more than 76,000 other airport store employees, had
their personal information stolen in an October 2020 data breach
and reports of the breach were known from as early as the next day.
However, the class action lawsuit says that it took more than eight
months for The Paradies Shops to begin notifying affected staff of
the breach.
According to the class action, the airport store operator had not
publicly reported when it first learned of the breach, and it took
until July 2021 for it to begin notifying various states Attorneys
General. [GN]
PFIZER INC: Nov. 1 EpiPen Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you or someone you love carry an EPIPEN? If you've purchased an
EpiPen sometime between
August 24, 2011 and November 1, 2020, you can SUBMIT A CLAIM to be
part of a class action lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleges that the group of defendants (a group of
medical companies including Pfizer), collaborated to keep the
EpiPen monopoly WHILE RAISING PRICEs from $100 to $600 in the span
of less than 10 years.
If you purchased a brand-name or generic EpiPen, you can SUBMIT A
CLAIM at https://www.epipenclassaction.com/Home/ClaimForms
Your CLAIM must be postmarked or submitted online by November 12,
2021. You don't have to know the exact amount of EpiPen's you
purchased, so just make your best guess. You may, however, have to
show proof after the settlement is reached. [GN]
PIPES & SHAW: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pipes & Shaw, LLC.
The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Pipes & Shaw, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-07694 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Pipes and Shaw LLC doing business as Veronica Beard --
https://veronicabeard.com/ -- features the latest trends in women's
designer clothing blending cool, classic & chic styles.[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
POLARIS INC: Averts Class Action Over Vehicles' Design Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Heilman, writing for Minnesota Lawyer, reports that
Medina-based Polaris Inc. has prevailed in a class-action lawsuit
claiming that a design flaw in its off-road vehicles shortens the
vehicles' lives and endangers owners. [GN]
PRIME COAST: Thompson Sues Over Vending Machines' Hidden Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON THOMPSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRIME COAST VENDING, LLC, and CANTALOUPE,
INC., Defendants, Case No. CACE-21-016888 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward
Cty., Sept. 7, 2021) arises from the Defendants' violation of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for unlawfully
charging consumers, including Plaintiff, who use debit or credit
card to purchase items from Defendant's vending machines.
According to the complaint, Cantaloupe partners with vending
machine operator Prime Coast to install payment portals that permit
consumers to use credit and debit cards to pay for vending machine
purchases. Contrary to the clear pricing featured on Prime Coast's
vending machines, and the thousands of other vending machines using
Cantaloupe's payment processing, consumers who made purchases at
these vending machines were allegedly charge a hidden and
undisclosed fee if they used a credit or debit card.
Cantaloupe Inc. is one of the largest providers of payment
processing services for vending machines in the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
- and -
Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Floor
Chicago, IL 60610
Telephone: (312) 893-7002
Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Reconsideration of Class Cert. Bid Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHTERNA PINCHASOV,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-24897-CMA (S.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order to reconsider her
motion for class certification and enter a ruling on the merits of
the same.
The Plaintiff says that should the court be inclined to deny her
motion for reconsideration, she would be allowed to leave to amend
her Reply to address the improper choice of law argument raised in
Defendant's footnote, or otherwise meet her burden regarding same.
On September 10, 2021, this Court entered a four-page order,
acknowledging withdrawal of Plaintiff's negligence count, and
denying Plaintiff's request for class certification for the
remaining intentional tort count of breach of fiduciary duty.
The basis for the Court's denial was unambiguous -- a perceived
failure by Plaintiff to address Defendant's argument that
California law and not Florida law governed the Plaintiff's tort
claim at issue.
However, the Defendant's argument invoked by the Order as the sole
factor necessitating class certification be denied, was Defendant's
perfunctory and conclusory insertion of a choice of law contention
raised in the second footnote embedded within Defendant's Response
to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Courts do not
consider argument merely raised in a footnote, as it was raised
here by the Defendant in its Response to Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.
Robinhood Financial operates as an institutional brokerage
company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 13,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zflPQR
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Citron, Esq.
MAC LEGAL, P.A.
4601 Sheridan Street, Suite 205
Hollywood, FL 33021
Telephone: (954) 395-2954
E-mail: Michael@maclegalpa.com
Service@maclegalpa.com
- and -
Igor Hernandez, Esq.
CORNISH HERNANDEZ GONZALEZ, PLLC
2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd, Suite 300
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 780-6058
E-mail: service@CHGLawyers.com
ihernandez@chglawyers.com
- and -
Ely R. Levy, Esq.
Venessa Valdes Solis, Esq.
LEVY & PARTNERS, PLLC
3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
Hollywood, Fl 33021
Telephone: (954) 727-8570
E-mail: elevy@lawlp.com
venessa@lawlp.com
Maritza@lawlp.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Grace Mead, Esq.
Ryan Thornton, Esq.
STEARNS WEAVER MILLER
Museum Tower
150 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: 305-789-3559
E-mail: gmead@stearnsweaver.com
rthornton@stearnsweaver.com
- and -
Maeve O'Connor, Esq.
Elliot Greenfield, Esq.
DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
919 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 909-6000
E-mail: mloconnor@debevoise.com
egreenfield@debevoise.com
SAFECO INSURANCE: 7th Cir. Adopts Objective Reasonableness Standard
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Parker, Esq., of Reed Smith, disclosed that on August 12,
2021, the Seventh Circuit joined the Third, Eighth, Ninth, and D.C.
Circuits in holding that the "objective reasonableness" standard
for determinations of scienter, as set forth by the Supreme Court
in Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 70 (2007),
applies in the context of False Claims Act (FCA) litigation. In
doing so, the Seventh Circuit observed that, under Safeco, a
defendant cannot possess the requisite scienter under the FCA if:
(1) it has an objectively reasonable reading of the statute or
regulation; and (2) there was no authoritative guidance warning
against its view. This case has significant implications for
defendants in FCA litigation by finding that an objectively
reasonable interpretation of the law will defeat allegations of
false claims.
Further, the decision is the latest victory in a spate of cases
brought by the plaintiffs' bar claiming that pharmacies are
required to report special prices -- such as membership club prices
or matched competitor prices -- as their usual and customary (U&C)
prices. Virtually every pharmacy that has operated a membership
club has faced scrutiny through actions under the FCA and
consumer-class actions. The Seventh Circuit's decision comes in the
wake of the recent jury verdict in favor of CVS in the matter of
Carl Washington (formerly known as Corcoran) et al. v. CVS
Pharmacy, Inc., No. 15-cv-03504 (N.D. Ca. Jun. 24, 2021). This
victory will support pharmacies' defenses in other similar
litigation alleging the submission of false U&C prices,
particularly when the alleged false conduct occurred before 2016,
given that the Seventh Circuit found that reporting retail prices
-- as opposed to special prices such as price matches -- was an
objectively reasonable approach to U&C reporting.
The Lower Court's Decision:
In U.S. ex rel. Schutte v. SUPERVALU, No. 11-cv-3290 (7th Cir. Aug.
12, 2021), two whistleblowers filed suit under the FCA in 2011,
alleging that pharmacies operated by the grocery chains SUPERVALU
and Albertsons knowingly caused false claims to be submitted to
government healthcare programs because they submitted their retail
cash prices, not customer-initiated matches of their competitors'
prices, as their U&C prices. The government declined to intervene
in the case. Following the close of discovery, the district court
initially entered partial summary judgment in favor of the
whistleblowers on the sole issue of the FCA's falsity element in
accordance with the Seventh Circuit's 2016 decision in U.S. ex rel.
Garbe v. Kmart Corp., 824 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2016), which had held
that Kmart submitted false claims when it did not pass on its
discount-program
prices -- that were held to be widely available -- to the
government.
After this decision limited to falsity, the district court then
entered complete summary judgment in favor of the pharmacies,
applying Safeco. The district court concluded that SUPERVALU and
Albertsons could not have acted "knowingly" under the FCA because
their understanding that U&C definitions did not require the
pharmacies to submit lower, price-match prices as U&C, was
objectively reasonable.
The Seventh Circuit's Decision:
On appeal, in a 2-1 decision, the Seventh Circuit joined all other
circuits that have reviewed this issue by applying the Supreme
Court's decision in Safeco to the FCA. In finding for the
pharmacies, the Court first concluded that the meaning of U&C, as
set forth in the relevant statutes and regulations, was ambiguous.
The Court then noted that SUPERVALU and Albertsons' interpretation
of Medicaid laws that defined U&C to refer to its retail cash
prices, as opposed to its price-match prices that it did not
necessarily charge all or most of its customers, was objectively
reasonable. The Court rejected the Relators' contention that the
only objectively reasonable interpretation of U&C was to include
special prices, such as club prices or price matches, and found
that an incorrect interpretation does not render an interpretation
unreasonable. The Court further cautioned that its prior decision
in Garbe did not address the FCA's scienter prong and that the
Court did not say that the only way to define U&C was the way the
Court defined it in Garbe. In addition, the Court observed that it
is irrelevant whether a defendant believed that it was violating
its U&C reporting requirements, as the FCA establishes liability
for knowingly false claims and, thus, a defendant's subjective
intent is insufficient for purposes of establishing liability.
Finally, the Court concluded that there was no authoritative
guidance that should have warned SUPERVALU and Albertsons away from
their interpretation of U&C, noting that there was no circuit court
precedent or guidance from a relevant agency prior to Garbe.
Notably, the Court specifically rejected the application of a 2006
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare Prescription
Drug Benefit Manual, which neither addressed price matches nor
customer-initiated prices.
Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's holding,
concluding that SUPERVALU and Albertsons' understanding of the
definition of U&C was objectively reasonable, and there was no
authoritative guidance that placed the pharmacies on notice that
their interpretation was erroneous. This decision -- which
represents the most recent in a series of Circuit Court rulings
adopting the Safeco standard in the context of FCA litigation -- is
a welcome outcome for FCA defendants.
Case to Watch:
The Seventh Circuit will also review the same lower court's
adoption of the Safeco "objective reasonableness" standard with
respect to Safeway's pharmacy programs, resulting in summary
judgment in favor of Safeway. See U.S. ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway,
Inc., 466 F. Supp. 3d 912 (C.D. Ill. 2020). Immediately following
its decision in Schutte, the Seventh Circuit invited the parties in
the Proctor case to brief Schutte's impact on the appeal. Oral
argument is scheduled to take place on September 9.
Reed Smith will continue to track the progress of this and any
related litigation. Please reach out to the health care attorneys
at Reed Smith if you have any questions about this precedent or any
other False Claims Act related inquiries. [GN]
SAUDI ARABIA: Class Action Over 9/11 Terrorist Attacks Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Ravlic, writing for The Mandarin, reports that the US
government must declassify documents that offer an explanation as
to what, if any, involvement the government of Saudi Arabia may
have had in the planning of the September 11 attacks, insists
former FBI agent Ali Soufan.
Soufan, who js the founder of the Soufan Center, was involved in
investigating a series of high-profile cases resulting from
terrorist activity including the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000
and the multiple attacks that felled the twin towers on September
11 two decades ago.
Mystery still surrounds the links that certain hijackers may have
had with representatives of the Saudi Arabian government, and
Soufan argues that transparency is critical so that those victims
and analysts searching for answers get closure.
"In a class action lawsuit currently pending against the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia, survivors of 9/11 and the families of many of those
who were murdered that day allege that some of those who helped
Hazmi and Midhar were, in fact, active agents of the Saudi Ministry
of Islamic Affairs, acting under orders from Riyadh," Soufan said.
"An investigation by ProPublica and the New York Times found
indirect evidence of such a connection. We must take these
allegations seriously, not least because they are backed by sworn
affidavits from former FBI agents who have investigated the
matter.
"The best way to deal with the matter, of course, would be for the
U.S. government to declassify documents relating to these contacts
and allow the public to see for themselves."
Soufan has written in a special edition of the Soufan Center's
Issue Brief that al Qaeda's strategy is to use conflict and chaos,
and that governments across the world should use all of the levers
of government to minimise the growth of groups such as al Qaeda.
He said that governments could use developmental assistance,
cultural and educational assistance, and diplomatic and policy
tools to "address the condition in which terrorism thrives and
terrorists find their recruits".
"The United States should not diminish attention to
counterterrorism and Afghanistan to pursue 'great power
competition'," Soufan said. "The two are not mutually exclusive and
state and non-state adversaries are likely to benefit from American
inattention."
Intelligence about the activities of terrorist groups gathered from
the frontlines in various countries such as Afghanistan is critical
and Soufan said that governments and international organisations
need to improve the capacities of people working at borders, travel
and financial institutions to be able to identify the activity of
terror networks. [GN]
SCIPLAY CORP: November 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
IN RE SCIPLAY CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION
Index No. 655984/2019
(Masley, J., Commercial Division Part 48)
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT,
AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
To:
All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the
Class A common stock of SciPlay Corporation ("SciPlay" or the
"Company") pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement
for SciPlay's May 3, 2019 initial public offering of Class A common
stock, and were allegedly damaged thereby.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, New York County, that Lead Plaintiffs
Police Retirement System of St. Louis and Hongwei Li, on behalf of
themselves and the proposed Settlement Class,1 and SciPlay and the
other defendants in the Action, have reached a proposed settlement
of the above-captioned class action (the "Action") in the amount of
$8,275,000 that, if approved, will resolve the Action in its
entirety (the "Settlement").
This Action is a securities class action brought on behalf of those
Persons who purchased or acquired SciPlay Class A common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement
for SciPlay's May 3, 2019 initial public offering of Class A common
stock. Lead Plaintiffs allege that the Registration Statement
contained misleading statements and omissions. Defendants have
denied, and continue to deny, all of Lead Plaintiffs' allegations,
and deny that the Registration Statement was in any way materially
false or misleading.
A hearing will be held before the Honorable Andrea Masley, on
November 15, 2021 at 3:30 p.m. EDT, before the Court, either in
person at the Supreme Court, New York County, Courtroom 242, 60
Centre Street, New York, NY 10007, or remotely using directions
that will be posted in advance on the Settlement website, in the
Court's discretion (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other
things, determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the
proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss
the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, dated July 27, 2021; (iii) approve the
proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund; and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application.
The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without
providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement
Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Notice and Proof
of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of
these documents by visiting the website dedicated to the
Settlement, www.SciPlaySecuritiesSettlement.com, or by contacting
the Claims Administrator at:
SciPlay Corporation Securities Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173062
Milwaukee, WI 53217
866-905-8128
info@SciPlaySecuritiesSettlement.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for
information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead
Counsel:
Alfred L. Fatale III Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
www.labaton.com
settlementquestions@labaton.com
888-219-6877
If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than December
23, 2021. If you are a Settlement Class Member and you do not
timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share
in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will
nevertheless be bound by the Settlement and all judgments or orders
entered by the Court in the Action, whether favorable or
unfavorable.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice such that it is received no later than October 25, 2021. If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely and validly
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will remain in the
Settlement Class and that means that, upon the Effective Date of
the Settlement, you will release all Plaintiffs' Released Claims
against the Defendant Releasees.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the Judgment, the
proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense
Application must be mailed to the Court and counsel for the Parties
in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they
are received no later than October 25, 2021.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL
REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
DATED: September 8, 2021
BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK
COUNTY
1 All terms not defined herein shall have the definition assigned
to them in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated July
27, 2021. [GN]
SELECTQUOTE INC: Faces Hartel Putative Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
SelectQuote, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, that June 30, 2021, that the
company is facing a putative securities class action lawsuit
entitled, Hartel v. SelectQuote, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-06903.
On August 17, 2021, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company and two of its executive officers in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaint, captioned Hartel v. SelectQuote, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:21-cv-06903, asserts securities fraud claims on behalf of a
putative class of plaintiffs who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of the Company's common stock between February 8, 2021 and
May 11, 2021 (the "Relevant Period").
Specifically, the complaint alleges the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by
making materially false and misleading statements and failing to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, allegedly causing the Company's common
stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the Relevant
Period.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and reimbursement of
attorneys' fees and certain other costs.
The Company believes the allegations in the complaint are without
merit and intends to defend the case vigorously.
SelectQuote said, "Accordingly, we currently believe that this
matter will not have a material adverse effect on any of our
results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. However,
depending on how this matter progresses, it could be costly to
defend and could divert the attention of management and other
resources from operations. The Company has not concluded that a
loss related to this matter is probable, nor has it accrued a
liability related to this matter."
SelectQuote, Inc. is a leading technology-enabled,
direct-to-consumer (DTC) distribution platform that provides
consumers with a transparent and convenient venue to shop for
complex senior health, life, and auto & home insurance policies
from a curated panel of the nation’s leading insurance carriers.
The company is based in Overland Park, Kansas.
SESEN BIO: Hagens Berman Reminds of October 18 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Sesen Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: SESN) investors with
losses in excess of $250,000 to submit your losses now.
Class Period: Dec. 21, 2020 - Aug. 17, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Oct. 18, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/SESN
Contact An Attorney Now: SESN@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
Sesen Bio, Inc. (SESN) Securities Fraud Class Action:
The complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented clinical trial
data for Sesen's lead product candidate Vicineum for the treatment
of certain non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.
Specifically, Defendants concealed that: (1) the company's clinical
trial for Vicineum had more than 2,000 protocol violations,
including 215 classified as "major," (2) three of the company's
clinical investigators were found guilty of "serious
noncompliance," including backdating data, (3) the company
submitted tainted data for Vicineum to the FDA, (4) the company's
clinical trials showed that Vicineum leaked out into the body and
caused serious side effects and increased risks for fatal liver
injury.
The truth began to emerge on Aug. 13, 2021, when Sesen announced
the FDA did not approve the BLA in its present form and sought
additional clinical/statistical data.
Then, on Aug. 16, 2021, the company revealed it needed to conduct
an additional clinical trial to provide the FDA with additional
efficacy and safety data.
Finally, on Aug. 18, 2021, STAT published an article entitled
"Sesen Bio trial of cancer drug marked by misconduct and worrisome
side effects, documents show." STAT cited hundreds of pages of
internal documents and three people familiar with the matter
reported the Vicineum clinical trial "was marked by thousands of
violations of study rules, damning investigator conduct, and
worrying signs of toxicity the company did not publicly disclose."
These events sent the price of Sesen shares sharply lower.
"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Sesen lied to them
about the prospects for Vicineum," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens
Berman partner leading the investigation.
If you invested in Sesen and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Sesen
should consider their options to help in the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or
email SESN@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com. [GN]
SESEN BIO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 12 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.
COIN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/coinbase-global-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19507&wire=1
SESN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sesen-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19507&wire=1
HYRE Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hyrecar-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19507&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Coinbase Global, Inc. (NASDAQ:COIN)
This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Coinbase Class A common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement
and prospectus for the resale of up to 114,850,769 shares of its
Class A common stock, whereby Coinbase began trading as a public
company on or around April 14, 2021.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 20, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/coinbase-global-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19507&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, (1) the Company required a
sizeable cash injection; (2) the Company's platform was susceptible
to service-level disruptions, which were increasingly likely to
occur as the Company scaled its services to a larger user base; and
(3) as a result of the foregoing Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Sesen Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:SESN)
SESN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 21,
2020 - August 17, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 18, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sesen-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19507&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Sesen
Bio, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Sesen Bio's clinical trial for its
cancer treatment product, Vicineum, had more than 2,000 violations
of trial protocol, including 215 classified as "major"; (2) three
of Sesen Bio's clinical investigators were found guilty of "serious
noncompliance," including "back-dating data"; (3) Sesen Bio had
submitted the tainted data in connection with the Biologics License
Application ("BLA") for Vicineum; (4) Sesen Bio's clinical trials
showed that Vicineum leaked out into the body, leading to side
effects including liver failure and liver toxicity, and increasing
the risks for fatal, drug-induced liver injury; (5) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's BLA for Vicineum was not likely to be
approved; (6) as a result of the foregoing, there was a reasonable
likelihood that Sesen Bio would be required to conduct additional
trials to support the efficacy and safety of Vicineum; and (7) 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.
HyreCar Inc. (NASDAQ:HYRE)
HYRE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 14, 2021 -
August 10, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hyrecar-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19507&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, HyreCar
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (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.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
SLINGSHOT TECHNOLOGIES: Gardner Sues Over CSRs' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDIE GARDNER, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. SLINGSHOT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00531-JCB (D. Utah, Sept. 7, 2021) is a
class and collective action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated current and/or former
Customer Service Representative employees of Defendant over
Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Utah Payment of Wages Act and alleged contractual obligations (or
unjust enrichment if no contract is found), and other appropriate
rules, regulations, statutes, and ordinances.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant subjected Plaintiff, and
those similarly situated, to Defendant's policy and practice of
failing to compensate at-home call center employees for their
necessary pre-shift time, which resulted in the failure to properly
compensate them as required under applicable federal and state
laws.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Customer Service
Representative and Collections Agent from April 2019 to August
2020.
Slingshot Technologies, Inc. provides customer service support to
leading home services brands, for things like pest control, lawn
care, and plumbing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nancy A. Mismash, Esq.
ROBERT J. DEBRY & ASSOCIATES
4252 South 700 East
Salt Lake City, UT 84107
Telephone: (801) 262-8915
Facsimile: (801) 262-8995
E-mail: nmismash@robertdebry.com
- and -
Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (612) 436-1800
Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com
SONIC CORP: Judge Denies Bid for Early Judgment in Data Breach Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria McKenzie, writing for Law360, reports that a federal judge
has denied fast-food chain Sonic's bid for an early judgment in a
class action over a massive data breach in which hackers gained
access to cash registers at 762 franchise restaurants. [GN]
SPECTRUM PHARMA: Glancy Prongay Reminds of November 1 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming November 1, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Spectrum" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: SPPI) securities between December 27, 2018
and August 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Spectrum 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/spectrum-pharmaceuticals-inc-1/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
In 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.
On August 6, 2021, Spectrum announced that it had received a
Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA regarding the BLA,
citing deficiencies related to manufacturing and requiring a
reinspection of the Company's manufacturing facility.
On this news, Spectrum's stock price fell $0.70 per share, or
nearly 22%, to close at $2.55 per share on August 6, 2021.
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the ROLONTIS
manufacturing facility maintained deficient controls and/or
procedures; (2) the foregoing deficiencies decreased the likelihood
that the FDA would approve the ROLONTIS BLA in its current form;
(3) Spectrum had therefore materially overstated the ROLONTIS BLA's
approval prospects; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements
about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Spectrum securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than November 1,
2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]
SPECTRUM PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Novemeber 1 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc ("Spectrum" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: SPPI) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Nevada, and docketed under 21-cv-01612, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Spectrum securities between
December 27, 2018 and August 5, 2021, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Spectrum securities during the Class Period, you have until
November 1, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff
for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.
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").
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.
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.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]
ST. LOUIS, MO: Filing of Class Status Response Extended
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cody, et al., v. City of
St. Louis, Case No. 4:17-cv-02707 (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Audrey
G Fleissig entered an order granting consent motion for extension
of time to file response/reply as to motion to certify class by
Defendant City of St. Louis.
The nature of suit states civil rights.
St. Louis is a major city in Missouri along the Mississippi
River.[CC]
STATE FARM: Baker Seeks Reconsideration of Class Status Denial
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RASHAD BAKER, RACHAEL
LEONARD, and ZELMA STOVALL, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00014-CDL (M.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to reconsider its Order denying class certification.
The Plaintiffs contend that reconsideration is warranted because
the Court misunderstood the claim they were seeking to certify, and
such misunderstanding, coupled with the Court's misimpression that
Richard Hixenbaugh's expert opinions were based on a small
"sample," as opposed to his substantial experience and knowledge
appraising the diminished value ("DV") of thousands of varied
vehicles, led to the mistaken conclusion that the Rule 23 elements
of commonality and predominance were lacking.
State Farm Insurance is a group of insurance companies throughout
the United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington,
Illinois.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 14, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ltz6jS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jerry A. Buchanan, Esq.
BUCHANAN LAW FIRM, PC
Post Office Box 2848
Columbus, GA 31902
Telephone: (706) 323-2848
E-mail: jab@thebuchananlawfirm.com
- and -
E. Adam Webb, Esq.
Matthew C. Klase, Esq.
WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (770) 444-9325
E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com
Matt@WebbLLC.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Thomas W. Curvin, Esq.
Valerie S. Sanders, Esq.
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
E-mail: tomcurvin@eversheds-sutherland.com
valeriesanders@eversheds-sutherland.com
STUDENT LOAN: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Robocalls
-------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Student Loan
Defense Center LLC faces a proposed class action over its alleged
practice of placing automated telemarketing calls to consumers who
never consented to receive them.
According to the case, the Student Loan Defense Center's use of an
artificial or prerecorded voice to market and advertise its
business through unsolicited telemarketing calls is a violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a federal law that prohibits
the use of such technology to place non-emergency telemarketing
calls without a recipient's prior express consent to do so.
The plaintiff, a Montgomery County, Maryland resident, claims the
Student Loan Defense Center, who purports to help consumers reduce
or eliminate student loan debt, called him on at least two
occasions in June 2021 and left voicemails that contained the
following prerecorded message:
"Hi this is Thomas from Student Loan Defense Center it looks like
we have on record that your federal student loan maybe eligible to
be reduced or even eliminated. So, give us a call us at
702-854-1378."
Per the complaint, the plaintiff was able to tell that the calls
utilized an artificial or prerecorded voice "because the caller was
robotic and because of the distinctive nature of the sound, pauses,
and the wording of the recordings were always the same."
The plaintiff claims to have never provided the defendant with his
cell phone number or his permission to place the unsolicited calls.
According to the case, the man never signed up for Student Loan
Defense Center's services or "had any form of business
relationship" with the company.
Moreover, the plaintiff's cell phone number has allegedly been
registered on the National Do Not Call Registry since November
2006, meaning the defendant was prohibited from calling his number
without his express written consent, according to the suit.
The lawsuit claims that aside from experiencing privacy violations,
the plaintiff has become "understandably aggravated" with the
defendant's calls, which have allegedly forced him to redirect his
attention from work and other activities and spend time
investigating the source of the messages. [GN]
STURDY MEMORIAL: Faces Class Action Over Ransomware Attack
----------------------------------------------------------
Jill McKeon, writing for HealthIT Security, reports that
Massachusetts-based Sturdy Memorial Hospital is facing a class
action lawsuit after a ransomware attack in February that impacted
over 35,000 individuals and put personally identifiable information
(PII) in jeopardy.
Local news outlet The Sun Chronicle reported that a class action
lawsuit was filed in Plymouth Superior Court on August 26, claiming
that the provider failed to safeguard its data against ransomware
attacks.
In addition to impacting Sturdy Memorial Hospital's data, the
incident also impacted Harbor Medical Associates, South Shore
Medical Center, and South Shore Physician Hospital Organization,
all of which had partnered with Sturdy for care coordination.
In Sturdy Memorial Hospital's official statement to patients on May
28, the provider admitted to paying a ransom in exchange for the
safe return of patient data.
"Through our investigation, we determined that an unauthorized
party gained access to some of our systems during the morning of
February 9, 2021," the statement explained.
"Our systems were secured later that same day. In exchange for a
ransom payment, we obtained assurances that the information
acquired would not be further distributed and that it had been
destroyed."
The plaintiffs alleged in the lawsuit that the ransomware payment
did not guarantee that their information is actually secured.
In addition, the FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Agency (CISA) both strongly discourage entities from paying a
ransom in response to a cyberattack.
"Paying a ransom doesn't guarantee you or your organization will
get any data back," the FBI's website asserts.
"It also encourages perpetrators to target more victims and offers
an incentive for others to get involved in this type of illegal
activity."
The stolen information included names, contact information, routing
numbers, financial account numbers, Medicare claim numbers, medical
history, and Social Security numbers. The hospital emphasized that
its EHR system was not involved in the breach.
The suit claims that the attack resulted in damages exceeding
$50,000, and the primary plaintiff's attorneys requested a trial by
jury.
The hospital provided two free years of credit monitoring and
encouraged individuals to review their financial statements
regularly.
However, the plaintiffs argued that two free years of credit
monitoring is insufficient and does not properly compensate
patients for the potential consequences of the ransomware attack,
which could last for much longer than two years.
Lawsuits, data recovery, and additional cybersecurity investments
are just some of the ramifications of a healthcare ransomware
attack. A recent report from IBM and Ponemon Institute estimated
that healthcare data breaches cost on average $9.23 million per
incident.
CISA recently released a fact sheet that outlined steps
organizations can take to protect PII and respond to a data breach.
The fact sheet emphasized that organizations should never pay a
ransom to cybercriminals and urged entities with sensitive data to
ensure that they have encrypted offline data backups and an
incident response plan.
It is also crucial that organizations ensure that data is disposed
of properly and report data breaches to state and federal agencies.
[GN]
SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Dec. 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
IN RE SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES,
INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-2978 (ZNQ) (LHG)
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SYNCHRONOSS
COMMON STOCK BETWEEN OCTOBER 28, 2014 AND JUNE 13, 2017,
INCLUSIVE:
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that, pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, a hearing
will be held on December 8, 2021, at 12:00 pm., before the
Honorable Zahid N. Quraishi, United States District Judge, at the
Clarkson S. Fisher Building & United States Courthouse, 402 East
State Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08608, to determine: (1) whether
a proposed Settlement of In re Synchronoss Technologies Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 17-2978 (D.N.J.) (the "Action")
including the sum of Nineteen Million ($19,000,000.00) in cash
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate,
which would result in this Action being dismissed with prejudice
and will prevent Settlement Class Members from ever being part of
any other lawsuit against the Defendants (and parties related to
them) about the legal claims being resolved by this Settlement, as
set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated August 19, 2021;
(2) whether, for purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the
Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of the
Settlement Class, Lead Plaintiff should be certified as Class
Representative for the Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should be
appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (3) whether
the Plan of Allocation of settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable,
and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (4) whether Lead
Plaintiff's Counsel should be awarded attorneys' fees and expenses
incurred in connection with this Action, together with interest
thereon, and whether the Lead Plaintiff should receive an award of
its costs and expenses in representing the Settlement Class. Those
matters will be addressed by the Court at the Settlement Hearing to
be held on December 8, 2021.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Synchronoss common stock
(NASDAQ: SNCR) during the Class Period (October 28, 2014 through
June 13, 2017, inclusive), your rights may be affected by this
Action and the Settlement thereof. If you have not received a
detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form
("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies either by downloading
this information at www.SynchronossSettlement.com or by writing to
Synchronoss Securities Settlement c/o Epiq PO Box 5406, Portland,
OR 97228-5406. If you are a Settlement Class Member, to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Proof of Claim form by mail (postmarked no later than January 6,
2022), or online at www.SynchronossSettlement.com (submitted no
later than January 6, 2022), establishing that you are entitled to
a recovery. You will be bound by any judgment rendered in the
Action unless you request to be excluded, in writing, such that it
is postmarked no later than November 17, 2021, in the manner and
form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion
such that it is postmarked no later than November 17, 2021, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
ask to be excluded, you will not get any payment from the
Settlement, and you cannot object to the Settlement. You will not
be legally bound by anything that happens in the lawsuit, and you
may be able to sue the Defendants and Related Parties about the
Settlement Class's Released Claims in the future. If you want to
bring your own lawsuit based on the matters alleged in this Action,
you may want to consult an attorney and discuss whether any
individual claim that you may wish to pursue would be time-barred.
Any objection to any aspect of the Settlement, the Plan of
Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's fee and expense application must
be filed with the Clerk of the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel
and Defendants' Counsel, such that they are received no later than
November 17, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Notice.
Requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim form should be made to
the Claims Administrator:
Synchronoss Securities Settlement
c/o Epiq
PO Box 5406
Portland, OR 97728-5406
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim
form, may be made to Lead Counsel:
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
Daniel L. Berger
485 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Tel: (646) 722-8500
Fax: (646) 722-8501
Email: dberger@gelaw.com
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 13, 2021
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY [GN]
T-MOBILE US: Asks the Court to Consolidate Data Breach Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
mobileworldlive.com reports that T-Mobile US asked the US Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate 29 class action
lawsuits made against the company following a data breach,
proposing all claims be heard as one suit by a solitary court.
In a filing, T-Mobile noted the request does not remove its right
to seek arbitration over the matters. The panel is a section of the
broader US judiciary which determines if suits filed in different
courts can be consolidated.
T-Mobile disclosed a network security breach in August which
affected 48 million current, former and prospective customers.
One plaintiff filed a separate motion also seeking to consolidate
the cases, but in a different court to the one proposed by
T-Mobile.
The operator argued the plaintiff's selection "is not well suited"
to hear the matter due to a shortage of judges.
T-Mobile also noted the location of hearings is less important due
to Covid-19 (coronavirus) restrictions, with courts tending to hear
cases online. [GN]
T-MOBILE USA: Faces Gonzalez Suit Over Alleged Data Info Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., Defendant,
Case 3:21-cv-16696-ZNQ-DEA (D.N.J., Sept. 9, 2021) is a class
action on behalf of the over 53 million individuals whose sensitive
personal identifying information was compromised in a cybersecurity
breach of T-Mobile, which was announced on or about August 16, 2021
(the "T-Mobile Breach").
According to the complaint, the compromised information includes
names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, driver's license
numbers, phone numbers, and two types of identification numbers
associated with mobile phones–IMEI and IMSI numbers.
T-Mobile allegedly failed to adequately protect consumers'
sensitive personal identifying information. Lack of proper
safeguards provided a means for unauthorized intruders to breach
T-Mobile's computer network and steal sensitive personal
identifying information.
T-MOBILE USA, INC. operates as a telecommunications company. The
Company specializes in radiotelephone services and communication,
distribution of services, and cellular devices. [BN
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI
OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
kcooper@carellabyrne.com
-and-
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
Christopher L. Ayers, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
cayers@seegerweiss.com
-and-
Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER
& CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7756
E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
mtroutner@ktmc.com
TENNESSEE: 3rd Family Joins Class Action Over Mask Opt-Out Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
WREG reports that a third Shelby County family has joined a lawsuit
against Gov. Bill Lee over his executive order that allows parents
to opt their children out of school mask mandates.
Court documents show that a 14-year-old Collierville girl and her
mother have joined the list of complaints. The girl, who is
vaccinated, reportedly suffers from an immunodeficiency that
"leaves her unable to rely on the COVID-19 vaccine's efficacy."
The suit claims that the opt-out executive violates the American
With Disabilities Act and puts students with disabilities at risk.
"Gov. Lee's Executive Order allowing parents to opt-out of the
County's mask mandate has placed the parents of those with
disabilities, which make them more susceptible to severe reaction
to COVID-19 infection, in the impossible situation of having to
choose between the health and life of their children and the basic,
fundamental right of an education for their children," the suit
states.
A Shelby County judge has issued a temporary restraining order,
meaning the governor cannot enforce the executive order in Shelby
County. That restraining order is set to expire September 17. [GN]
TENNESSEE: Judge Hears Governor's Mask Opt-Out Order in Schools
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cathryn Stout, writing for Chalkbeat Tennessee, reports that
schools can use creative scheduling to comply with the Tennessee
governor's order that allows families to opt out of masks in
schools and still protect the rights and health of
immunocompromised students, argued attorney Jim Newsome during a
court hearing on Sept. 9.
Newsome, attorney for defendant Gov. Bill Lee, was among the
parties presenting their cases in a Memphis courtroom before U.S.
District Judge Sheryl Lipman of Tennessee's Western District.
Lipman will now decide if a temporary injunction is appropriate to
continue to block the governor's order, or if the court should
reinstate it.
The judge issued no ruling on Sept. 9, but a temporary restraining
order issued Sept. 3 remains in effect until Sept. 17. The
temporary injunction, if granted, would remain in effect while the
trial is pending or until overturned in an appeals court.
Three Shelby County parents of students with disabilities filed the
class action lawsuit on Aug. 27. The suit says allowing students to
circumvent a county masks-in-schools mandate violates the Americans
with Disabilities Act because it jeopardizes the health and
education of their medically vulnerable children who are at higher
risks for severe complications from COVID. Parents in Florida have
filed a similar lawsuit, and the Biden administration also is
investigating related issues in Tennessee and other states.
Newsome argued that the lawsuit was premature because the parents
had not exhausted the appeals available through the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act. Schools also should consider using
gyms as classrooms to allow more social distancing or make special
class schedules for students with disabilities to help limit their
contact with their maskless peers, he said.
Brice Timmons of Donati Law, who is representing the plaintiffs,
scoffed at such ideas after court.
"I thought that separate but equal was over but apparently we're
going to argue that again for students with disabilities," he
said.
"That is completely antithetical to the central purpose of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, which is to integrate persons with
disabilities into the mainstream of American society," he said.
Lawyers for Shelby County, who also filed a lawsuit against the
governor over the executive order, supported the plaintiffs in
court on Sept. 9.
The only witness called on Sept. 9 was Theresa Nicholls, assistant
commissioner for special populations at the Tennessee Department of
Education.
Nicholls, a defense witness and the head of special education
services for the state, walked through the extensive accommodations
that the state has made to help students with disabilities access a
"free appropriate public education" since the beginning of the
pandemic.
On cross-examination, the plaintiff's lawyer asked if Lee consulted
with her before issuing the order, given her expertise on
disability services.
"No," she replied.
In the Sept. 9 hearing, attorneys and the judge also spoke to the
effectiveness of masks, with the plaintiff's attorneys echoing the
sentiments of a brief filed in the case by the state and national
chapters of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
The statement said, "The AAP's strong recommendation of universal
masking for students, teachers, and support staff in school has
remained consistent from the beginning -- because masks are a safe,
effective, and critical infection control measure."
The statement also quoted one of Lee's statements on masking.
"In short, the science squarely backs up Gov. Lee's advice that "If
you want to protect your kid from the (COVID) virus or from
quarantine, the best way to do that is to have your kid in school
with a mask," it said.
Lee, who is vaccinated and often wears a mask, has given mixed
messages on masks for Tennessee schoolchildren. In interviews, news
conferences, and social media posts, he has said both that masks
are unnecessary in school and necessary for safety. However, Lee
has remained steadfast that parents should make that choice for
their children, not a county or school district.
The issue of masks in schools has been hotly debated nationwide,
but especially in the Republican stronghold of the South where some
conservatives argue that masks are an intrusion on personal
liberties.
At the end of the Sept. 9 hearing, an anti-mask protester
approached plaintiff attorney Bryce Ashby and called him a bad
lawyer for his position in the case.
After the hearing, Ashby's colleague addressed the outburst,
political climate, and a threat made against one of his clients. He
said he's worried about his clients' safety but added that he has
already witnessed their toughness.
"Parents of kids with disabilities are some of the strongest people
I've ever met," he said. "They have to be tough. They have to
constantly advocate for their children's needs. [GN]
THERANOS INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Certif. in Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lieff Cabraser disclosed that on September 8, 2021, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed certification of the plaintiff
class in the blood test fraud class action lawsuit brought by Lieff
Cabraser against Theranos, Inc. and Walgreens over alleged
misrepresentations the companies made about the efficacy and
accuracy of Theranos' "Edison" blood tests and related unfair
business practices.
The Court also affirmed certification of the RICO claim against
Walgreens for its participation in the Theranos Enterprise.
(Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes and her colleague Sunny
Balawani, both defendants in the case, face separate criminal
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.)
The opinion is notable for resurrecting the viability and force of
dignitary torts, where the offense is in suffering certain kinds of
shaming and forced loss of dignity. It will also allow the
certified battery claim to proceed against Walgreens on behalf of
consumers whose blood was drawn with Theranos technology that
Plaintiffs allege Walgreens knew was unreliable for diagnostic
purposes.
First offered to consumers in 2013, Theranos and Walgreens
advertised the Edison blood tests as being revolutionary --
allowing a wide range of vital tests to be accurately performed
using a smaller needle and a smaller blood sample size than
traditional blood testing devices. According to reports, more than
1 million consumers paid to have their blood tested by Theranos,
submitting their blood samples at Theranos facilities and at
dedicated Theranos stations set up at Walgreens pharmacy locations
in Arizona and California.
In May 2016, after media reports called into question the accuracy
of the Edison tests and after federal regulators began
investigating Theranos' testing facilities, Theranos voided all
test results for blood tests performed at its Edison facility in
2014 and 2015, and revised the test results for thousands of other
blood tests it had conducted. As alleged in the lawsuit, not only
did consumers who paid for these blood tests not get what they paid
for, but many consumers relied on what turned out to be inaccurate
and unreliable test results in obtaining medical treatment that was
unnecessary or in not pursuing treatment that was necessary.
The Theranos Walgreens lawsuit seeks damages, including
reimbursement of the amounts paid by consumers for the voided
tests, as well as an injunction to prevent Theranos and Walgreens
from engaging in further misrepresentations and unfair conduct.
[GN]
TIVITY HEALTH: Securities Class Action Pending in Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------
National law firm Morris Kandinov is investigating the actions of
the officers and board of directors of Tivity Health, Inc., DWS ESG
Core Equity Fund, Gates Industrial Corporation plc, and Columbia
Large Cap Index Fund. If you are a current owner of shares of any
of these stocks, contact leo@moka.law or call (619) 708-3993.
Tivity Health, Inc. (NASDAQ: TVTY) Accused of Misleading Investors
On July 29, 2021, Judge Waverly Crenshaw, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee issued an order
denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss in the pending
securities class action against Tivity Health, Inc., paving the way
for litigation to proceed. Tivity provides fitness and wellness
programs geared toward senior citizens. According to the complaint,
defendants made false and misleading statements regarding Tivity's
acquisition of Nutrisystem for $1.3 billion. On February 19, 2020,
Tivity announced its financial results for the fourth quarter and
year ended December 31, 2019, disclosing that its "Nutrition
segment had a disappointing end to 2019" including "a non-cash
impairment charge of $377.1 million," that contributed to a $272.8
million net loss in the fourth quarter, due to complications in the
nutrition business since its acquisition of Nutrisystem in March
2019. The company also announced that its Chief Executive Officer
had resigned. In September of 2020, the company announced the
resignation of co-founder Daniel G. Tully from its Board of
Directors. Then, in October of 2020, it was reported that the
company would be selling Nutrisystem for $575 million, less than
half of what Tivity paid to buy it. Morris Kandinov is
investigating Tivity regarding possible breaches of fiduciary
duties and other violations of law, including securities claims on
behalf of shareholders. To learn more about this investigation and
your rights, visit: https://moka.law/case-contact-form/.
Representation is contingency based, no out of pocket costs.
DWS ESG Core Equity Fund (NASDAQ: MIDTX) Shareholder Rights
Investigation
Morris Kandinov is investigating DWS ESG Core Equity Fund regarding
possible breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of law,
including securities claims on behalf of shareholders. To learn
more about this investigation and your rights, visit:
https://moka.law/case-contact-form/. Representation is contingency
based, no out of pocket costs.
Gates Industrial Corporation plc (NYSE: GTES) Shareholder Rights
Investigation
Morris Kandinov is investigating Gates Industrial Corporation plc
regarding corporate governance failures, possible breaches of
fiduciary duties and other violations of law, including securities
claims on behalf of shareholders, related to recent transactions
and/or events at the company. To learn more about this
investigation and your rights, visit:
https://moka.law/case-contact-form/. Representation is contingency
based, no out of pocket costs.
Columbia Large Cap Index Fund Class A (NASDAQ: NEIAX) Shareholder
Rights Investigation
Morris Kandinov is investigating Columbia Large Cap Index Fund
regarding possible breaches of fiduciary duties and other
violations of law, including securities claims on behalf of
shareholders. To learn more about this investigation and your
rights, visit: https://moka.law/case-contact-form/. Representation
is contingency based, no out of pocket costs.
Concerned shareholders are encouraged to contact Leo Kandinov to
learn more:
leo@moka.law
(619) 708-3993
moka.law
Morris Kandinov LLP is a national law firm that specializes in
recovering investment losses and protecting stockholder rights. We
work on contingency (i.e., you do not pay our fees out-of-pocket),
and our attorneys have made substantial recoveries for investors in
jurisdictions across the country. The firm would be happy to
further discuss these matters, and any legal rights or remedies
potentially available to you, at no charge.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Leo Kandinov, Partner
leo@moka.law
619-708-3993
550 West B Street, 4th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
moka.law [GN]
TOTAL LIFE: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Extended to Oct. 11
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY MILLER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TOTAL LIFE CHANGES, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00095-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga.),
the Hon. Judge Brian K. Epps entered an order granting the parties'
consent motion to extend the deadline time to file class
certification.
The Plaintiff shall have through and including October 11, 2021, to
motion for class certification, says Judge Epps.
Total Life offers health, wellness, and beauty products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nY41I7 at no extra charge.[CC]
TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Class Claims in WM Bang Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WM BANG LLC AND JBANG LLC
D/B/A BANG, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case
No. 7:20-cv-04540-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth M. Karas
entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss class
claims.
Because Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege any physical
loss or damage to the Restaurant, the claim for breach of contract
under the Business Income provision is dismissed, Judge Karas
says.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, against Travelers Casualty Insurance for
breach of contract claims and declaratory judgment under the
Business Income and Civil Authority provisions of an insurance
policy issued by Defendant for losses related to the COVID-19
pandemic and government orders issued in connection with it.
The Plaintiffs own and operate a restaurant named Bang in a
shopping mall in White Plains, New York which "was forced to
significantly curtail its services due to Orders issued by the
State of New York" "in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic. The
Plaintiffs purchased an "all risk" Businessowners Property Coverage
policy from Defendant.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39bMnYr at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Greg F. Coleman, Esq.
Alex R. Straus, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
Knoxville, TN
Beverly Hills, CA
- and -
Shannon J. Carson, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
Philadelphia, PA
The Defendant is represented by:
Wystan M. Ackerman, Esq.
ROBINSON & COLE LLP
Hartford, CT
TRUE PERFORMANCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Neighbors Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN NEIGHBORS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRUE PERFORMANCE DIRECTIONAL DRILLING, LLC;
and TP US HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-00882-GBW-GJF (D.N.M., Sept. 8, 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 Neighbors was employed by the Defendants a driller.
TRUE PERFORMANCE DIRECTIONAL DRILLING, LLC specializes in oil and
gas well steering and drilling. Industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
-and-
Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
TRULIEVE INC: Settles Hiring Class Action for Undisclosed Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Jarvis, writing for Law360, reports that cannabis company
Trulieve has reached a settlement with a class of employees and
applicants who alleged they were fired or had employment offers
pulled based on a consumer report, according to court filings that
do not disclose the settlement amount. [GN]
TTE TECHNOLOGY: Joint Stipulated Class Status Briefing OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK PACANA, PAUL
FISKRATTI, and WAYNE LEWALD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. TTE TECHNOLOGY, INC., dba TCL NORTH
AMERICA, Case No. 3:20-cv-02857-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Edward M. Chen entered an order that:
1. the opposition and reply deadlines populated by the ECF
system, and the October 14, 2021 hearing date on
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, are stricken;
2. pursuant to the amended case management and pretrial
order, Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification shall remain due on October 8, 2021,
and Plaintiffs' reply in support of same shall remain due
November 5, 2021; and
3. the hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
shall be Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 1:30 p.m., or the
next available date convenient for the Court.
TTE designs and markets televisions.
A copy of the Parties's motion dated Sept. 10, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tFOGg3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alex R. Straus, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PPLC
280 S. Beverly Drive, Suit PH
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
E-mail: alex@milberg.com
- and -
Charles J Crueger, Esq.
Ben Kaplan, Esq. (pro hac vice)
CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC
4532 North Oakland Avenue
Whitefish Bay, WI 53211
Telephone: (414) 210-3868
E-mail: cjc@cruegerdickinson.com
bak@cruegerdickinson.com
- and -
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
Greg F. Coleman, Esq.
Adam Edwards, Esq.
First Horizon Plaza
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: gcoleman@milberg.com
aedwards@milberg.com
- and -
Luke P. Hudock, Esq.
HUDOCK LAW GROUP, S.C.
P.O. Box 83
Muskego, WI 53150
Telephone: (414) 526-4906
E-mail: lphudock@law-hlg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Isabelle L. Ord, Esq.
Elizabeth C. Callahan, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
Telephone: (415) 836-2500
Facsimile: (415) 836-2501
E-mail: isabelle.ord@us.dlapiper.com
elizabeth.callahan@us.dlapiper.com
- and -
Christopher M. Young, esq.
Alexander E. Wolf, esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
401 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619).699-2700
Facsimile: (619) 699-2701
E-mail: christopher.young@us.dlapiper.com
alexander.wolf@us.dlapiper.com
TUTTO IL GIORNO: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Zhiminaicela Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO ZHIMINAICELA, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TUTTO IL GIORNO 3 LLC d/b/a TUTTO
IL GIORNO, GIANPAOLO DE FELICE, individually, DAVID MAYER,
individually, and GABBY KARAN, individually, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-04984-FB-ARL (E.D.N.Y., September 3, 2021) brings this
complaint as a collective action against the Defendants to recover
unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or about
January 2011 to in or about January 2021 to perform non-exempt
duties for the Defendants including preparing food, cooking, and
cleaning the premises.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants willfully disregarded and
purposefully evaded record keeping of the FLSA by failing to
maintain accurate records of the hours worked by and wages paid to
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. As a result,
despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, the
Defendants failed to pay them overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants also failed to
pay them spread-of-hours pay for each day in which they worked more
than ten hours in a single day. Moreover, the Defendants failed to
post required notices regarding payment of minimum wages and
overtime compensation as required by the FLSA and NYLL, failed to
provide them with accurate wage statement with every payment of
wages as well as with written notice of their rate of pay and other
information, the Plaintiff added.
Tutto Il Giorno 3 LLC d/b/a TUTTO IL Giorno operates a restaurant,
jointly owned by the Individual Defendants. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Tel: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: mfarnworth@romerolawny.com
TWIN CITY FIRE: Cosmetic Laser Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Cosmetic Laser, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled COSMETIC LASER, INC., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TWIN CITY FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00638, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises out of Twin City's refusal to pay its insureds under its
Business Income, Civil Authority, and Extra Expense coverages for
losses suffered due to COVID-19, any orders by civil authorities
that have required the necessary suspension of business, and any
efforts to prevent further property damage or to minimize the
suspension of business and continue operations.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Ruling and Judgment
dated Aug. 11, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the
case for failure to state a claim.
The appellate case is captioned as Cosmetic Laser, Inc. v. Twin
City Fire Insurance Company, Case No. 21-2160, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on Sept. 9,
2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Cosmetic Laser, Inc., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Kathleen L. Nastri, Esq.
KOSKOFF KOSKOFF & BIEDER, P.C.
350 Fairfield Avenue
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Telephone: (203) 336-4421
E-mail: knastri@koskoff.com
Defendant-Appellee Twin City Fire Insurance Company is represented
by:
Anthony Anscombe, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
227 West Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 577-1265
- and -
Gerald Parker Dwyer, Jr., Esq.
ROBINSON & COLE LLP
280 Trumbull Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 275-8200
E-mail: gdwyer@rc.com
TYSON FOODS: Settles Broiler Chicken Antitrust Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Schaltegger at thrillist.com reports that unless you're a
vegetarian or just vehemently opposed to poultry, you've likely
purchased a grocery store chicken in the last decade. Why does this
matter, though? Well, a $181 million class-action lawsuit
settlement was just reached with major chicken producers, and you
might be eligible for a piece of it.
Law firms Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll reached that settlement with Fieldale, George's, Mar Jac,
Peco, Pilgrim's, and Tyson as part of the Broiler Chicken Antitrust
Litigation lawsuit that claimed price-fixing. And while, according
to Food & Wine, a court will still have to approve the settlement
later this year, you might be able to stake your claim on some
cash.
According to the outlet, anyone that's "purchased fresh or frozen
raw chicken (defined as whole birds with or without giblets), whole
cut-up birds purchased within a package, or 'white meat' parts
including breasts and wings (or cuts containing a combination of
these), but excluding chicken that is marketed as halal, kosher,
free range, or organic)," is eligible. This applies to chicken from
"any of the above brands or their alleged co-conspirators" between
January 1, 2009 and July 31, 2019 or through December 31, 2020 for
Pilgrim's.
Here are the states included in the settlement: California,
District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
Oregon, Rhode Island (after July 15, 2013), South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.
Now, how much money could you get? That we don't know. But you can
start by checking your eligibility and filing a claim. Claims will
be accepted through December 31, 2022.[GN]
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: WeirFoulds Attorney Disccuses Class Cert. Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cassie Chaloux, Esq., of WeirFoulds LLP, in an article for Mondaq,
reports that following the Supreme Court of Canada's highly
anticipated decision in Uber Technologies Inc. v Heller, 2020 SCC
16, on August 12, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
certified the class action proceeding against Uber. The
certification comes after an almost five-year battle that commenced
in January 2017, in which Uber drivers attempted to become
recognized as employees of Uber rather than independent
contractors.
The Uber Chronology
I. The Lower Court Decisions
In 2017, Mr. Heller, who worked as a food delivery driver and
courier through Uber's app, brought a class proceeding against Uber
for violations of Ontario's Employment Standards Act, 2000, SO
2000, c 41 [ESA]. Among the alleged violations were Uber's failure
to provide the minimum wage and vacation pay as mandated under the
ESA. The proceeding was successfully stayed by Uber in reliance on
an arbitration clause in Uber's standard form services agreements
that required a driver to participate in an arbitration process in
the Netherlands. The lower court found that the clause ousted the
jurisdiction of the Ontario courts to hear and resolve Mr. Heller's
claim.
The Ontario Court of Appeal subsequently reversed the lower court's
decision, finding that the arbitration clause was unconscionable
and therefore unenforceable. Uber appealed to the Supreme Court of
Canada.
II. The Supreme Court of Canada Decision
The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Court of Appeal's decision.
The Supreme Court agreed that the Ontario courts could determine
the enforceability of the arbitration clause, and ultimately found
that the clause was unconscionable and could not be enforced. An
important factor in the Supreme Court's decision to assume
jurisdiction was that the extensive fees required to arbitrate in
the Netherlands were a significant barrier to the plaintiff's
ability to have the enforceability of the arbitration agreement
determined.
In finding the arbitration clause unconscionable, the Supreme Court
emphasized the inequality of bargaining power inherent in the fact
that the arbitration clause was part of an unnegotiated standard
form contract. There was a significant difference between the
sophistication of Uber and the individual workers, which resulted
in individual workers failing to appreciate the financial and legal
implications of the clause.
Add a Stop - Certified at Last
Following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision, the Ontario
Superior Court gave the order for 'full speed ahead' when they
certified the class proceeding in Heller v Uber Technologies Inc.,
2021 ONSC 5518. Two key points of interest arise around (i) the
unique problems of an employment law class action in the context of
the "sharing economy", and (ii) the impact of the "Class Action
Waiver" clause on determining the class.
I. A New Kind of Class Action?
Early in the decision, the Court noted that the proposed class
action raised "unique problems of how class actions should adopt to
what has been called the 'sharing economy', which is animated by
information, computer, and Internet technology". In this case,
certain Uber drivers felt differently than others about their
employment status -- some wished to be classified as employees of
Uber, while others viewed themselves as being self-employed --
resulting in questions around the commonality criteria (the
certification requirement that there be common issues among the
putative class members). These unique problems were apparent as
early as the classification stage, where the Court classified the
class action as a "compound classification of employment status
class action" rather than a "conventional misclassification of
employment" case.
In a conventional misclassification class action, the issue is
whether the class members are hired as employees, or dependent or
independent contractors. In a compound classification of employment
status class action, the threshold issue is whether, in a sharing
economy, there is an employment relationship between the company
and the class members. If an employment relationship is found to
exist, the issue then becomes whether the class members are
employees, dependent contractors, or independent contractors.
II.Class Action Waivers?
After the Supreme Court of Canada found the arbitration clause in
Uber's services agreement unenforceable, Uber updated the clause.
The updated clause, referred to as the Arbitration and Class Action
Waiver Clause (the "Clause"), had three significant changes from
the earlier one. First, disputes would be handled through
arbitration in the province or territory where the worker resided.
Second, the individual could opt-out of the mandatory arbitration.
Third, by agreeing to the Clause, the individual waived their right
to participate in a class action proceeding.
As a result of the Clause, the plaintiff class would have excluded
every individual who accepted the arbitration clause. While the
Court accepted that individuals were likely not given sufficient
notice of the Clause, the Court refused to strike it down. The
Court noted that the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, SO 1992, c 6 is a
purely procedural statute, and that it would take a substantive
decision not available on certification to strike down a contract
term. Those who agreed to the Clause would not be excluded from the
class, although they would need to be informed of the legal
significance of the Clause so that they could determine whether
they would like to opt-in or opt-out of the class.
Key Takeaways
The Uber class action reached the end of one long journey, only to
begin another. While it is difficult to anticipate the outcome of
the action at this time, the Uber chronology suggests that the
courts are well-aware of the shifting employment landscape, and
that they will undertake flexible analyses to address these changes
when appropriate. This class action is certainly one to watch, as
it may have far reaching implications for both workers and
businesses who participate in Canada's ever-growing gig-economy.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about
your specific circumstances. [GN]
UNIQUE FREIGHT: Villamar Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NILO VILLAMAR, ON BEHALF
OF HIMSELF AND THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. UNIQUE FREIGHT LINES,
INC., A FLORIDA PROFIT CORPORATION, ROADTEX TRANSPORTATION CORP, A
FOREIGN PROFIT CORPORATION, CARRIER COMPLIANCE SERVICES CORP, A
FLORIDA PROFIT CORPORATION, UNIQUE FREIGHT BROKERS, INC. A FLORIDA
PROFIT CORPORATION AND DAVID PADRON, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No.
1:21-cv-20573-DPG (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") as follows:
1. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
for unpaid overtime wages on behalf of current and former
similarly situated Dispatcher/Customer Service
Representatives of the Defendants or held similar job
titles and worked for Defendants at any time in Florida
from February 2018 through the resolution of this case;
2. directing the Defendants to, within 14 days of this
Court's Order, provide a list, in electronic and
importable format, of all persons employed by Defendants
as Dispatcher/Customer Service Representatives or held
similar job titles, from February 2018 to the present,
containing the names, job titles, dates of employment,
addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers of such
similarly situated current and former employees, so that
Court-ordered notice may be implemented;
3. authorizing him to send Notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
section 216(b), via U.S. Mail, electronically via email,
and/or in a form approved by the Court, to all putative
collective action members, that they may join this action
and assert claims under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 201 et
seq.;
4. authorizing putative collective action members to
electronically sign the Court authorized Consent to Join;
and
5. authorizing putative class members 90 days to return their
consent to join forms and opt into the case.
Mr. Villamar, along with three additional Opt-In Plaintiffs who
have come forward to participate in this case, prior to any notice
being issued, are current and former hourly paid non-exempt
employees of the Defendants who were not paid overtime compensation
for any hours worked over 40 during any workweek; rather, they were
just paid an hourly rate, up to 40 hours.
Unique Freight provides courier, delivery services, customer
service and compliance services to its customers.
A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept.
13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2XnDpW4 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah E. Storch, Esq.
RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
10368 W. State Road 84, Suite 103
Davie, FL 33324
Telephone: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com
UNITED KINGDOM: Class Action Mulled Over Quarantine Hotel Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reports that a law firm representing travellers is taking
the government to court over the UK's quarantine hotel policy.
Passengers must spend 11 nights in a quarantine hotel on returning
from red list countries, even if fully vaccinated and testing
negative for Covid.
London-based firm PGMBM said it had called for a judicial review
into the policy, but the government had refused.
The cost of staying in a quarantine hotel is now GBP2,285.
More than 60 locations including Turkey, Mexico, Kenya and many
countries in Africa and Latin America are currently on the red
list.
The other European countries with mandatory quarantine involving
hotel detentions -- Ireland and Norway -- have amended their
schemes so fully vaccinated travellers are exempt from needing to
quarantine.
If PGMBM's claim was successful, not only would double-vaccinated
travellers no longer have to quarantine at the hotels, but the
government could also be forced to refund the fees of all those who
were vaccinated and still had to stay there.
It is estimated more than 100,000 people have been forced to
quarantine in hotels since the policy came into force in February
this year.
PGMBM said it was launching a legal case, representing "multiple"
clients. It described the policy as an "unlawful deprivation of
liberty" that violated fundamental human rights.
It is now asking anyone who was forced to stay in hotel quarantine
to register their details and help form a class action aimed at
forcing the government to reverse its policy.
One of the firm's clients, Ozgur Akyuz, a bus driver from Hackney,
said his pregnant wife and three-year-old daughter caught Covid
while staying in hotel quarantine two weeks ago.
"They were put in a hotel near Heathrow and it was filthy. She was
crying all day long," he said.
"She saw a rat in her room and kept being served bacon and
sausages, even though she told them she didn't eat pork.
"I ended up cooking food at home to take to her, and I also bought
a rat trap from B&Q to give her peace of mind because the hotel did
nothing."
Mr Akyuz said both his wife and daughter tested positive for Covid
on the third day of quarantine, despite having tested negative when
they left Turkey.
"They were allowed home after 10 days but I then caught Covid from
them. So we have all had it. If she had come home to quarantine,
chances are none of us would have got it."
The government has said it has taken "decisive action" to protect
the country, including the quarantine system. Other countries
around the world had taken equivalent action, it said.
This is the second case PGMBM has brought about quarantine hotels.
The first was on the grounds of financial hardship and resulted in
the government offering the option to pay in 12 monthly instalments
for those facing financial hardship. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Black Civil Servants Vow to Press on With Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
cbc.ca reports that Carol Sip spent three decades inside the
federal public service, but her retirement plaque is the last thing
she wants to see on her wall.
Instead it sits stored away in the original packaging.
"Why would I hang it up? It will only bring back awful memories,"
Sip said. "It should be something that you should be proud of, but
I'm not proud of it because I know what I went through."
Sip is one of a group Black federal employees involved in a
proposed class-action lawsuit launched last December against the
federal government alleging years of discrimination and seeking
some $2.5 billion in damages.
Earlier this year, federal employee Monica Agard broke her silence
about being Black in the public service after a senior colleague at
the Immigration and Refugee Board's Toronto office allegedly
praised "the good old days when we had slaves."
Since then, the proposed class-action lawsuit has become one step
closer to reality after a motion was filed for it to be certified.
It will fall to the newly elected government to decide whether to
challenge that.
But as Canadians head to the polls, the Liberals appear to be
changing course on the issue with a policy plank promising support
for Black workers.
The federal government had maintained that its workers could find
help through the employee assistance and health-care programs,
which the plaintiffs have long said fail to address the specific
trauma of anti-Black racism.
Now, if elected, the Liberal Party says in its platform it will
"establish a mental health fund for Black public servants, and
support career advancement, training, sponsorship, and educational
opportunities for Black workers."
Party spokesperson Alex Wellstead wouldn't explicitly say if a
Liberal government would support certifying the class action to go
forward, but acknowledged "Black Canadians face unique challenges
when it comes to mental health in the workplace.
"That is why we've committed through our platform to work with
community partners on the design and establishment of this fund,
which directly responds to calls from Black employees in the public
service and will ensure that Black public servants are supported."
As the employer of the federal public service, the Treasury Board
of Canada Secretariat said the courts have not set a timetable for
next steps on certifying the suit and that at this stage, it would
be "premature" to comment.
Lawyer Hugh Scher, who's assisting with the suit, hopes whichever
party forms government will work with Black civil servants to
address their needs.
"If they do, then they will have a willing partner," he said. "If
they don't, then they will have a worthy adversary in court."
'A Living Nightmare'
Sip's ordeal began in the early 1980s, shortly after she became an
employee at the federal customs department under what is now the
Canada Revenue Agency. Over a number of years spent working there,
she says she experienced repeated incidents of harassment and
discrimination by a supervisor who behaved with impunity. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Johnson Seeks to Certify Class of Air Force Veterans
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN JOHNSON and JANE
DOE on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
FRANK KENDALL, Secretary of the Air Force, Case No.
3:21-cv-01214-VLB (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order certifying this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23.
The Plaintiffs propose a class of:
"all Air Force veterans who: (a) received less-than-Honorable
discharges from the Air Force (this includes General and
Other-than-Honorable discharges from the Air Force and Air
Force Reserve and Bad Conduct discharges from special court-
martials); (b) were discharged within the last fifteen years
or, if discharged more than fifteen years ago, received a
discharge upgrade decision from the AFDRB within the last six
years; (c) have not received discharge upgrades to Honorable;
and (d) have mental health conditions including but not
limited to post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"), PTSD-
related conditions, or Traumatic Brain Injury ("TBI"), or
have experiences of military sexual trauma ("MST") or
intimate partner violence ("IPV"), that have resulted in a
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one
or more major life activities, or have records documenting
one or more of the aforementioned experiences or conditions."
Mr. Frank Kendall is the 26th Secretary of the Air Force. In this
role, Mr. Kendall leads the Department of the Air Force, comprised
of the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Space Force.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 13,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Z1LPCS
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Bassali, Esq.
Yael Caplan, Esq.
Bardia Faghihvaseghi, Esq.
Alexis Kallen, Esq.
Shariful Khan, Esq.
Meghan E. Brooks, Esq.
Michael J. Wishnie, Esq.
VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES CLINIC
JEROME N. FRANK LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION
Yale Law School †
P.O. Box 209090
New Haven, CT 06520-9090
Telephone: (203) 432-4800
E-mail: michael.wishnie@ylsclinics.org
- and -
Susan J. Kohlmann, Esq.
Jeremy M. Creelan, Esq.
Jacob Tracer, Esq.
Laurel A. Raymond, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
919 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022-3908
Telephone: (212) 891-1678
E-mail: jcreelan@jenner.com
UNITED STATES: Mossman Seeks to Certify Class of Landlords
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASA MOSSMAN, et. al., v.
U.S. CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-00028-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order pursuant to Rule23(a) and, particularly, 23(b)(2) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 23(a):
1. certifying a class of plaintiffs defined as follows:
"All those residential landlords threatened with criminal
prosecution and denied access to state courts for eviction
of tenants for non-payment of rent as a result of the CDC
Order;" and
2. appointing John J. Vecchione and Jared McClain of the New
Civil Liberties Alliance appointed as class counsel.
The Class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against
Defendants, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.
Department of Health & Human Services, and Rochelle P. Walensky,
Sherri A. Berger, and Xavier Becerra, in their respective official
capacities, to restore their property rights and remove a cloud
over their own property rights to their rights to access state
courts and to not be prosecuted for any attempt to remove tenants
by eviction.
The Plaintiffs are the National Association of Rental Property
Managers, the National Apartment Association, Asa Mossman, Winston
Tracy Mills, Chris and Tomika Allen, Dennis R. and Roseanne D.
Norton, Emanuel and Jessica John, Harold and Sarah Schoeffler,
Schoeffler Real Estate Holdings Co., LLC, Kendra Kessinger, Titan's
Creek, LLC, Butler Plantations, LLC, Richard McConkie, Shraddha
Kanak, 7M Apartments LLC, 7M Real Estate LLC, and Steve and Susan
Harrison.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the national
public health agency of the United States. It is a United States
federal agency, under the Department of Health and Human Services,
and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tNR7NH
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John J. Vecchione, Esq.
Jared McClain, Esq.
NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE
1225 19th St. NW, Suite 450
Washington, DC 20036
E-mail: John.Vecchione@ncla.legal
Jared.McClain@ncla.legal
- and -
Alan R. Ostergren, Esq.
THE KIRKWOOD INSTITUTE, INC.
3500 Locust Street, Suite 199
Des Moines, Iowa 50309
Telephone: (515) 207-0134
E-mail: alan.ostergren@kirkwoodinstitute.org
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Davis FCRA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Hope Davis, Plaintiff v. Universal Protection
Services, LLC D/B/A Allied Universal Security Services, LLC,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-cv-01758 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael
M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania grants the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and
dismisses the case.
Introduction
Federal jurisdiction in the case was invoked under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681p. The FCRA regulates
consumer reporting agencies that compile and disseminate personal
information about consumers. Under the Act, there is a cause of
action for consumers to sue and recover damages for certain
violations.
In the Plaintiff's Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint
("SASC"), which is the operative complaint, the Plaintiff alleges
that the FCRA makes it presumptively unlawful to obtain and use a
consumer report for employment purposes unless the employer
complies with the FCRA's notice requirements. The Plaintiff has
specifically alleged that the Defendant violated Section
1681b(b)(3) by denying employment opportunities to the Plaintiff
based wholly or partly on her consumer report without first
providing her with notice and a copy of the report. The Plaintiff
filed her complaint on behalf of an "Adverse Action Class," seeking
statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and other appropriate
relief on behalf of the Plaintiff and the putative class.
The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's failure to provide her
with copies of her consumer report and pre-adverse action notice
was in violation of the requirements set forth by Section
1681b(b)(3), depriving her of a meaningful opportunity to learn
what the report contained and to discuss its contents with the
Defendant. Further, the Plaintiff argues that she only obtained a
copy of the consumer report by requesting it herself directly from
the reporting agency, Sterling.
Background
The Plaintiff filed her original Complaint on April 2, 2020. The
Defendant moved to dismiss the individual and class allegations
that fell outside of the two-year limitations period for FCRA
claims as well as the individual and class allegations, contending
that Defendant did not provide Plaintiff or putative class members
with a copy of their FCRA rights. The Court granted the dismissal
of the individual and class allegations of Section
1681b(b)(3)(A)(ii) regarding the Defendant's alleged failure to
provide a summary of FCRA rights, without prejudice and with leave
to amend, but denied the Defendant's request to dismiss or strike
class allegations. The Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint
Soon after, the Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings, which the Plaintiff opposed. Discovery proceeded. While
these motions were pending, the Defendant filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment, to which the Plaintiff responded.
Despite this somewhat complex procedural status, and without ruling
on all of the pending motions, the Court denied the Plaintiff's
Motion to file a Substituted Amended Complaint, but did allow her
to file, with proper support, a Motion for Leave to File a Second
Amended Supplemental Complaint ("SASC"). The Court required the
SASC to include a detailed explanation about the underlying facts
of the alleged "mistake" made by the Plaintiff in the original
Complaint.
The Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File the SASC
on June 28, 2021. The Defendant answered the SASC.
Plaintiff's Actual Allegations
The Plaintiff applied to work as a security guard on Tulane
University's campus in August 2019 and was conditionally offered
employment pending the successful completion of a background check.
The Defendant, Allied, obtained the Plaintiff's consumer report
from a reporting agency, Sterling, which had designated her as
"Level 2." This designation prevented a conditional hire from
starting employment and indicated that the application needed
further review. Sometime after Aug. 15, 2019, the Plaintiff called
the employer to ask about the status of her application. The
employer informed her she did not get the job because "something
had come up on her background check." According to the Plaintiff,
the Defendant did not provide her with a pre-adverse action notice,
including a copy of her consumer report, before or after informing
her she did not get the job.
In January 2020, the Plaintiff again applied for a security
position with Defendant and was, again, conditionally offered
employment pending a background check. Again, the Defendant
obtained the Plaintiff's consumer report from Sterling, which again
listed her at the "Level 2" designation. She called the employer to
follow up regarding her start date and was told by an Allied
supervisor that the Plaintiff could not be hired because she had a
felony on her background report and the felony must be expunged for
her to be hired. The Defendant emailed Plaintiff a "Criminal
History Disclosure Form," but did not include a copy of the
Plaintiff's consumer report. The SASC does not indicate what the
Plaintiff did with the disclosure form.
Notably, the Plaintiff, in the SASC, pleads that she was
"ineligible" for employment for both positions. Further, she does
not allege that the Level 2 coding was improper or inaccurate.
Likewise, the SASC does not deny that the Plaintiff has a criminal
record. Rather, the Plaintiff admits that she was told she was not
hired because of her criminal record, but never pleads this fact
was inaccurate.
Discussion
The primary issue concerns whether the Plaintiff has standing to
sue the Defendant for its alleged violations of the FCRA in light
of Third Circuit precedents and the recent Supreme Court decision
in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021). Also pending
before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Class.
Judge Baylson (1) concludes that the Plaintiff does not have
standing, and the case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction;
and (2) alternatively, even if the Plaintiff does have standing, he
grants the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismiss the
case for that reason.
A. Article III Standing
Article III of the Constitution is built on the concept of
separation of powers and confines the federal judicial power to
resolving "cases" and "controversies." SFor there to be a case or
controversy under Article III, the plaintiff must have standing.
The Plaintiff, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bears
the burden of demonstrating that she has Article III standing. To
establish standing, the Plaintiff must show that she (1) suffered
an injury in fact that is concrete, (2) that the injury is fairly
traceable to the conduct of the defendant, and (3) that the injury
is likely to be redressed by judicial relief.
At issue in the case is the requirement of the Plaintiff
demonstrating that she suffered concrete harm sufficient to
establish Article III standing. Concrete harms are "real, and not
abstract." Intangible harms can also be concrete, including
reputational harms.
Judge Baylson explains that the Supreme Court explained in
TransUnion that for standing purposes, there is an important
distinction between "(i) a plaintiff's statutory cause of action to
sue a defendant over the defendant's violation of federal law, and
(ii) a plaintiff's suffering concrete harm because of the
defendant's violation of federal law." Congress may enact legal
obligations or prohibitions and create causes of action for
plaintiffs to sue those who violate them. However, pursuant to
Article III, an injury in law is not necessarily an injury in fact
and, thus, only plaintiffs who have shown that they suffered
concrete harm by a defendant's statutory violation have standing to
sue that defendant in federal court. Furthermore, the mere risk of
future harm, without more, is not sufficient to demonstrate Article
III standing in a damages suit.
Judge Baylson holds that the Plaintiff does not have standing to
pursue her FCRA claim. The facts show that she suffered no
"concrete harm" due to any act or omission by the Defendant.
Considering the entire record, in the light most favorable to the
Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was not hired by the Defendant because of
her criminal history, not because of the alleged FCRA violation.
The Defendant's failure to send her a copy of her consumer report
is a mere procedural error, like the "formatting error" discussed
in TransUnion, or the "procedural error" discussed in Long.
Even if the Plaintiff had received a copy of her consumer report,
it would have done her no good, because, crucially, she admits that
she has a criminal record and that she was ineligible for
employment. Thus, the alleged lack of opportunity to have a
meaningful discussion about the report's contents cannot be
proximately connected to any concrete harm.
The Plaintiff concedes several important points in her pleadings
and other parts of the record. For example, the Plaintiff knew she
had a criminal record when she applied to the two job openings.
Judge Baylson interprets the SASC to show that the Plaintiff knew
she was ineligible for employment. Moreover, the Plaintiff admitted
the existence of multiple criminal charges and time spent in jail
during her deposition. These admissions require Judge Baylson to
conclude that the Plaintiff entered the application process
understanding that she was ineligible for employment, and therefore
did not suffer any concrete harm because of the allegedly flawed
FCRA notification procedures.
B. Summary Judgment
Alternatively, if the Plaintiff does have standing, Judge Baylson
now considers the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and
concludes that the Defendant's Motion is granted.
In considering a motion for summary judgment, courts must view all
facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the party
opposing the motion. Accordingly, the non-movant's evidence is to
be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in the
non-movant's favor. In addition, determinations of credibility,
weighing of evidence, and drawing of legitimate inferences from the
facts are functions of a jury, not those of a judge.
In the alternative, Judge Baylson holds that even if the Plaintiff
did have standing, he would grant the Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment on two grounds: (i) the Plaintiff did not suffer
an adverse employment action; and/or (ii) the Plaintiff cannot show
causation. As to the first ground, the Judge finds that Allied's
preliminary "Level 2" code calls for further investigation and
evaluation before any adverse action is intended or carried out.
As to the second ground, even if the Plaintiff could show an
adverse action, she still cannot show causation. Like the
Plaintiff's failure to have standing, her failure to get the job
was not caused by any act or omission by the Defendant that
violated the FCRA. The Plaintiff admitted that she is often
untruthful on job applications. And, since it appears undisputed
that the Plaintiff did in fact have a prior criminal record, the
Plaintiff cannot show that the employment outcome would have been
different even if the Defendant had notified the Plaintiff
appropriately with a copy of her consumer report. Since the
Plaintiff cannot show the threshold causal connection between her
alleged injury and the Defendant's purportedly unlawful conduct,
summary judgment should be granted.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Baylson dismisses the case for
lack of standing, and therefore jurisdiction. Alternatively, even
if the Plaintiff does have standing, the Judge finds that the
Defendant has met its burden in moving for summary judgment, and he
would dismiss the case on that basis as well.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 3, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/28pa2cha from Leagle.com.
UPS SUPPLY: Dismissal of Hughes' Unpaid Wages Class Claim Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARION HUGHES; JAMES A. CRUME; PHILLIP L. WESTERN;
RAYMOND S. BATTS; AND TERRI A. ROGERS, Appellants v. UPS SUPPLY
CHAIN SOLUTIONS, INC.; UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.; AND DEFENDANTS
JOHN DOE 1-10, Appellees, Case No. 2019-CA-1457-MR (Ky. App.), the
Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirms the April 26, 2019 order of
the Jefferson Circuit Court.
That order granted the motion by UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc.,
and UPS, Inc., for a judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the
Unpaid Wages class claim.
Marion Hughes, Raymond S. Batts, James A. Crume, Terri A. Rogers,
and Phillip L. Western, As the Lead Plaintiffs for the Class, have
appealed from the April 26, 2019, order of the Jefferson Circuit
Court granting UPS' motion for a judgment on the pleadings and
dismissing the Unpaid Wages class claim.
The claim has been before the Court on three earlier appeals,
albeit related to class certification. Kentucky's Wages and Hours
Act, Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) Chapter 337, allows a
plaintiff who is not compensated by his or her employer for
performing tasks which are compensable to recover payment for the
time spent performing such tasks -- along with liquidated damages
and attorney's fees.
In 2007, the Appellees filed a putative class action against UPS.
In their complaint, they alleged that they and other employees of
UPS were required to enter workplace facilities through mandatory
security checkpoints before clocking in and to exit through the
security checkpoints after clocking out each day. The Appellees
alleged that they were not paid wages for time spent at the
security checkpoints and that UPS violated Kentucky's Wages and
Hours Act by failing to compensate employees for work time. They
filed a motion for class certification. The proposed class was
defined as consisting of all nonexempt UPS employees employed in
the Commonwealth during the applicable limitations period.
By order entered July 27, 2012, the circuit court denied the
purported class representatives' motion for class certification.
They filed a notice of appeal.
Thereafter, the purported class representatives filed a motion to
amend, seeking to certify a more limited class. The new putative
class was defined as all nonexempt UPS employees who worked at the
following locations: Elizabethtown, Louisville, Technical &
Logistics Center, and Worldport during the applicable limitations
period.
By opinion and order entered Oct. 9, 2012, the circuit court
concluded that the more limited class also failed to meet the
prerequisites and conditions of the rules of procedure governing
class actions. Consequently, the court declined to certify the
limited class. A second notice of appeal was filed.
The appeals were consolidated by an order of the Court of Appeals
of Kentucky entered on Nov. 27, 2012. It vacated the circuit
court's order denying class certification of the more narrowly
defined class and remanded the matter for further proceedings. Upon
remand, it instructed the circuit court to determine whether the
limited class satisfied the remaining prerequisites for class
certification pursuant to two other provisions of CR 23.01 --
numerosity and adequacy of representation.
Upon remand, UPS filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. UPS
contended that the unpaid wages claims of the proposed class
members could not be pursued through a class action because the
provisions of Kentucky's Wages and Hours law did not permit such
actions. Following a hearing conducted on Aug. 15, 2014, the
Jefferson Circuit Court denied the motion of UPS for judgment on
the pleadings. The court determined that given this large number of
potential plaintiffs, joinder was impracticable. It concluded that
the proposed class plainly met the numerosity prerequisite of CR
23.01. It also concluded that the adequacy of representation
prerequisite of CR 23.01 had been satisfied. The circuit court
further found that the questions of law or fact common to the
members of the proposed class predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members and that a class action is
superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of the controversy. These findings comported with the
requirements of CR 23.02(c).
Having determined that the proposed limited class satisfied one of
the three conditions provided by CR 23.02, the circuit court
certified the putative class on Aug. 15, 2014. UPS then filed this
appeal. Hence, the circuit court clearly complied with the Court of
Appeals of Kentucky's directive to it upon remand. The Court of
Appeals of Kentucky affirmed class certification. Its opinion
became final on Feb. 6, 2019.
On remand, UPS filed a renewed motion for a partial judgment on the
pleadings, arguing that the time for which the Class was seeking
compensation -- time spent waiting for and undergoing security
screenings -- was not compensable under Kentucky law. In its
response, the Class objected to the motion, arguing that KRS
Chapter 337 does not contain any reference to the FLSA's
Portal-to-Portal Act, meaning that Kentucky had not adopted those
exceptions. In reply, UPS argued that KRS Chapter 337 and the FLSA
should be interpreted consistently and that the Portal-to-Portal
Act was meant to clarify that compensable work did not include the
time an employee spent walking to and from his workstation or other
preliminary or postliminary activities, citing Tyson Foods, Inc. v.
Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442, 447, 136 S.Ct. 1036, 1042, 194 L. Ed. 2d
124 (2016). The holding in Integrity Staffing, UPS argued,
controlled in the case.
The court heard oral arguments from the parties in early April, and
on April 26, 2019, it entered an order granting the motion by UPS.
The Class moved the court to clarify the April 26, 2019, order to
show that it dismissed only a narrow portion of the claim that a
jury might find was attributable to travel or, alternatively, to
make that order final and appealable. The court scheduled a status
conference for Sept. 18, 2019, where it heard arguments from
counsel. By order entered that day, it denied the motion to clarify
and granted the Class's alternative motion to make the April 19,
2019, order final and appealable. The instant appeal now follows.
On appeal, the Class continues to argue that the federal
Portal-to-Portal Act has not been adopted in Kentucky and therefore
cannot support the circuit court's ruling; that, even if it
applied, the court's dismissal was in error due to the lack of
discovery and the existence of disputed questions of material fact;
and that the court erred in preventing the Class from presenting
all of its theories of liability to a jury.
The Court of Appeals of Kentucky finds no merit in these arguments.
For its first argument, the Class contends that the
Portal-to-Portal Act has not been adopted into Kentucky law because
that language was not specifically adopted by the General Assembly
in KRS Chapter 337.
The Court of Appeals of Kentucky has considered the parties'
arguments and caselaw cited in their respective briefs. Based upon
its review, it agrees with the interpretation of Kentucky's Wage
and Hours laws as set forth in Vance v. Amazon.com, Inc., 852 F.3d
601 (6th Cir. 2017). and hold that the circuit court properly ruled
that security screenings at issue constituted preliminary and
postliminary activities that were not part of the workers'
principal activity in their work for UPS and therefore were not
compensable. Therefore, the Class' Unpaid Wages claim could not be
maintained and was properly dismissed.
Next, the Class argues that, even if the Portal-to-Portal Act
exception were to be read into KRS Chapter 337, the circuit court
still erred in dismissing the Unpaid Wages class claim due to lack
of discovery and the existence of disputed material facts. In its
brief, the Class listed questions of material fact as including
whether UPS' mandatory security locations were job sites, whether
the Class members were required to report to the mandatory security
locations for instructions, whether the Class members performed
work by participating in security procedures, whether the security
procedures were a principal duty, whether the security procedures
were for UPS' benefits, and whether the security procedures could
be eliminated.
In response, UPS cites to City of Pioneer Village, 104 S.W.3d at
759, in which the Supreme Court of Kentucky explained the purpose
of a CR 12.03 motion for a judgment on the pleadings. It argues
that dismissal was still warranted because the time for which the
Class was seeking compensation remained noncompensable as a matter
of law. The Court of Appeals of Kentucky agrees and finds no merit
in the Class' argument to the contrary.
Finally, the Class argues that the circuit court's ruling prevented
it from presenting all of its liability theories to the jury,
stating that the jury could have found that the time was
compensable under such a theory as "waiting time." UPS responds
that the Class did not attempt to establish a set of facts to show
that the Class members were "engaged to" pass through security
checkpoints or that undergoing these security screenings
constituted an integral part of their job. Again, the Court of
Appeals of Kentucky finds no merit in the Class's argument.
For the foregoing reasons, the order dismissing the Unpaid Wages
class claim is affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 3, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/7xn3pfew from Leagle.com.
Andrew J. Horne -- ahorne@msapc.net -- Louisville, Kentucky,
Michael D. Grabhorn, Andrew M. Grabhorn, in Louisville, Kentucky,
Briefs for the Appellants.
C. Laurence Woods III -- lwoods@fbtlaw.com -- Kyle D. Johnson --
kjohnson@fbtlaw.com -- in Louisville, Kentucky, Mark A. Perry,
Washington, D.C., Julian W. Kleinbrodt, in San Francisco,
California, Brief for Appellees UPS SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS, INC.,
and UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Lutz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Virgin Galactic, LLC.
The case is styled as Zachary James Lutz, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Virgin Galactic, LLC,
Case No. BCV-21-102063 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Sept. 2,
2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Virgin Galactic -- https://www.virgingalactic.com/ -- is an
American spaceflight company founded by Richard Branson and his
British Virgin Group retains an 18% stake through Virgin
Investments Limited.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM
9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: 949-379-6250
VITA LOCATORS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Price Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTORIA PRICE, v. VITA
LOCATORS LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01868-CMA-SKC (D. Colo.), the Hon.
Christine M. Arguello Judge entered an order:
1. certifying the proposed Settlement Class for the sole
purpose of effectuating the Parties' Settlement,
consisting of:
"individuals who worked for Vita Locators, LLC as
apartment locators at any time between January 1, 2018
and May 17, 2021;"
2. finding that:
(a) the Parties' Settlement was fairly and honestly
negotiated;
(b) the Parties judge the settlement to be fair and
reasonable;
(c) serious questions of law and fact exist and place the
ultimate outcome of the litigation in doubt; and
(d) the value of immediate recovery outweighs the mere
possibility of future relief after protracted and
expensive litigation.
3. preliminarily approving the Settlement;
4. appointing Plaintiff Victoria Price as the Class
Representative for the Class;
5. appointing Plaintiff's counsel, Claire Hunter and Adam
Harrison of HKM Employment Attorneys LLP as Class Counsel;
6. approving the Notice and Opt-out forms attached to the
Motion to be sent to the Settlement Class Members;
7. authorizing notice to be sent to the Settlement Class
8. directing Class Counsel to file a joint motion seeking
final approval of the Settlement no less than 14 days
before the Final Fairness Hearing; and
9. setting a two-hour Final Fairness Hearing for December 20,
2021, at 10:00 AM. Class Counsel shall include this date
on the Notices sent to the Settlement Class; and
10. denying as moot the Defendant Andrew Wiggin's motion to
dismiss first amended individual, collective and class
action complaint and jury demand.
Vita is a free apartment finding service in the Denver, Colorado
metro.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kfAaIA at no extra charge.[CC]
WATERDROP INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of November 15 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a leading national shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Waterdrop Inc. ("Waterdrop" or the "Company") (NYSE: WDH) American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or "shares") pursuant and/or traceable to
the Company's May 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO").
Waterdrop investors have until November 15, 2021 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.
If you suffered a loss on your Waterdrop 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/waterdrop-inc/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
In May 2021, Waterdrop completed its IPO, selling 30 million ADSs
at $12.00 per share.
Then, on June 17, 2021, Waterdrop reported its financial results
for the quarter that closed before the IPO, disclosing among other
results, that the Company's operating costs and expenses had
increased over 75%, or around RMB579.1 million, to RMB1,343.9
million (US$205.1 million). As a result, the Company reported an
operating loss for the quarter of RMB460.6 million (US$70.3
million), a four-fold increase over the prior year period.
Then, on August 11, 2021, media outlets reported that the China
Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission directed insurance
companies to terminate improper marketing and pricing practices and
improve their user privacy protections. Bloomberg reported that
"[r]egulators have since moved to shutter some operations including
mutual aid healthcare platforms operated by Waterdrop."
Then, on September 8, 2021, Waterdrop announced that its operating
losses for the quarter ended June 30, 2021 had continued to
increase, totaling RMB815.4 million (US$126.3 million), compared
with an operating profit of RMB7.2 million for the same period of
2020.
On September 13, 2021, the Company's ADSs dropped to a low of just
$3 per ADS, or 75% below the IPO price.
The complaint filed alleges that Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: (1) Waterdrop had achieved a substantial portion of
its historical revenue growth through illicit means that ran afoul
of Chinese rules and regulations governing the insurance industry;
(2) Waterdrop had been ordered by the Chinese government to shut
down its mutual aid platform because of its failure to comply with
Chinese law; (3) Waterdrop was under investigation by regulatory
authorities for continued violations of Chinese law; (4) as a
result of the foregoing, there existed a material undisclosed risk
and substantial likelihood that Waterdrop would face severe adverse
reactions by regulatory authorities following the IPO; (5)
Waterdrop's operating losses had increased more than four-fold in
the first quarter of 2021 as a result of the cessation of its
mutual aid business and rapidly growing customer acquisition costs;
and (6) as a result of the foregoing, the registration statement's
representations regarding Waterdrop's historical financial and
operational metrics and purported market opportunities did not
accurately reflect the actual business, operations, and financial
results and trajectory of the Company in the lead up to the IPO,
were materially false and misleading, and lacked a factual basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Waterdrop ADSs pursuant
and/or traceable to the IPO, you may move the Court no later than
November 15, 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.
View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210916005121/en/ [GN]
WATERDROP INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of Nov. 15 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Waterdrop Inc. (NYSE: WDH) investors with
significant losses to submit your losses now.
Class Period: May 4, 2021 - Sept. 14, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Nov. 15, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/WDH
Contact An Attorney Now: WDH@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
Waterdrop Inc. (WDH) Securities Class Action:
The complaint alleges that Defendants made misrepresentations and
omissions in Waterdrop's May 2021 initial public offering
documents, which enabled Waterdrop to raise $360 million in gross
proceeds.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Waterdrop had
revenue growth through illicit methods; (ii) PRC regulators had
ordered Waterdrop to shut down its mutual aid platform; (iii)
Waterdrop's operating losses had increased significantly as a
result of the cessation of its mutual aid business and rapidly
growing customer acquisition costs; and (iv) Waterdrop was under
investigation for continued violations of Chinese law.
The truth began to emerge on June 17, 2021, when Waterdrop
announced disappointing Q1 2021 financial results (i.e., the
quarter before the IPO). The Company revealed that its operating
expenses ballooned 75%, due largely to the cessation of its mutual
aid business and growing customer acquisition costs.
Then, on Aug. 11, 2021, multiple news outlets reported that the PRC
regulators had ordered insurance companies to cease improper
marketing and pricing practices. Bloomberg reported "[r]egulators
have since moved to shutter some operations including mutual aid
healthcare platforms operated by Waterdrop."
Finally, on Sept. 8, 2021, Waterdrop reported its operating losses
for Q2 2021 continued to accelerate, again blaming the dismal
results on a whopping 160% increase in operating costs and expenses
compared to Q2 2020.
By Sept. 13, 2021, the price of Waterdrop ADSs closed at $3.01, or
roughly 75% below the $12.00 IPO price.
"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Waterdrop's IPO
documents concealed known regulatory risks and adverse business
trends," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.
If you invested in Waterdrop, or have knowledge that may assist the
firm's investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights with
Hagens Berman.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Waterdrop should consider their options to help in the
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.
Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original
information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any
successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call
Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email mailto:WDH@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or
follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw. [GN]
WE MAKE DOUGH: Garcia Seeks Unpaid OT Wages & Spread of Hours Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE GARCIA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WE MAKE DOUGH, INC. and RICHARD ALBANO d/b/a
RITCHIE'S PIZZA OF DEER PARK and COMMACK, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-04972 (E.D.N.Y., September 3, 2021) brings this complaint
as a collective action against the Defendants to recover unpaid
overtime wages, spread of hours pay, and statutory damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook from in or
about 2016 to in or about June 2021.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants did not pay him overtime
premium for all hours worked each workweek in excess of 40 per week
at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay, as well as
spread-of-hours pay for each day in which his spread of hours
exceeded 10 hours. He further contends that the Defendants failed
to provide him with an accurate statement, and with written notice
in his native language of his rate of pay and other information.
The Defendants own and operate a restaurant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Tel: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com
WILLAMETTE VALLEY: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in "Kelley"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLENE KELLEY,
Individually and on Behalf of the Class Members, v. WILLAMETTE
VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-02196-SB (D. Or.), the
Hon. Judge Stacie F. Beckerman entered an order granting joint
motion to modify scheduling order as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification to be filed
on or before June 27, 2022.
2. The Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Class
Certification due 35 days after the motion for Rule 23
class certification is filed.
3. The Plaintiffs reply in support of Rule 23 certification
is due 21 days following Defendant's response, if any.
4. The Court will reset other case management deadlines after
resolution of the motion for class certification.
Willamette Valley Medical Center, LLC was founded in 2008. The
Company's line of business includes providing general medical and
surgical hospital services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZahNNi at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
E-mail: jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
WISCONSIN: Faces Class Suit Over Disability Unemployment Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Koran, writing for Wisconsin Watch, reports that Tracy Long
of Fond du Lac County is no stranger to Wisconsin's unemployment
system. With 30 years of experience in manufacturing, she's been
subject to the ebbs and flows of the industry. Long says she has
applied for unemployment aid dozens of times in the past three
decades.
But after a workplace injury that resulted in three back surgeries
in as many years left her unable to complete many of the tasks
she'd previously performed, in 2019 she turned to the state's
unemployment system for relief -- one that would soon be strained
close to its breaking point by the pandemic.
This time, however, due to her disability, the system that in years
past helped keep her afloat barred her from the aid meant to help
jobless workers weather employment gaps.
Owing to a 2013 law passed by a Republican-controlled legislature,
Wisconsin bars workers who receive federal Social Security
Disability Insurance benefits from simultaneously collecting state
unemployment aid. Labor experts say such a ban exists in only one
other state.
"I'm backed so far into a corner, and it's something I can no
longer comprehend anymore or do on my own," said Long, 50. At one
point, she says an adjudicator with the Department of Workforce
Development had accused her of fraud for benefits she had
previously received -- a charge that was later cleared. But Long
was still required to pay back an alleged overpayment.
With the help of Madison attorney Victor Forberger, Long and seven
other plaintiffs ofiled a class-action lawsuit in U.S. District
Court in Madison hoping to recoup the unemployment benefits they
and other people with disabilities in Wisconsin were denied -- and
undo the law that barred them from accessing the aid.
According to the suit, roughly 157,000 SSDI recipients work in
Wisconsin, or one out of every 17 workers. The law enacted in 2013
and revised in 2015 prevents these workers from collecting benefits
after they are laid off. The lawsuit asks for an injunction halting
enforcement of the law while the case is pending.
At a press conference in Madison, Forberger said the state's
interpretation and application of Wisconsin's unemployment
compensation eligibility statute is unconstitutional and violates
federal law that bans discrimination based on a person's
disability.
"The goal here is to have disabled people treated like everyone
else," Forberger told Wisconsin Watch. "This is discrimination
against those with disabilities because the state has said, 'You
know, because you get SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance)
benefits -- which you are only get because you're disabled -- you
can't get unemployment benefits'. . . That's just basically
wrong."
DWD said it was aware of the complaint and pointed out that Gov.
Tony Evers has tried to reverse the law, but it was blocked by
Republicans who run the state Legislature. Democratic lawmakers are
also seeking to change the law.
"A fix to the Social Security Disability Insurance issue was
included in the governor's proposed 2021-23 biennial budget," said
DWD spokesperson Jennifer Sereno. "This item was removed by
Republicans in the Legislature during the (budget) process."
The lawsuit comes a year after Wisconsin's DWD, which administers
unemployment benefits, reversed course on its policy to deny
Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) to workers who lost their
jobs due to the pandemic who also were receiving federal disability
benefits. That reversal followed a 2020 Wisconsin Watch/WPR report
that revealed Wisconsin was denying PUA benefits to workers with
disabilities.
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, along with 26 other Republican
lawmakers, claimed in a 2013 letter that collecting disability and
unemployment benefits simultaneously represented "double dipping"
that "may constitute fraud."
Labor and unemployment insurance expert George Wentworth previously
told Wisconsin Watch that North Carolina is the only other state
with such a ban.
SSDI guidelines allow and even encourage those who receive
disability benefits to supplement their income with part-time work,
so long as the employee does not earn more than $1,310 a month. The
federal program is set up for those who have worked and paid Social
Security taxes but can no longer perform "substantially gainful
activity."
That includes workers like Evan Johnson, a 55-year-old former truck
driver who lives in Central Wisconsin's village of Weston. Johnson
said he had been driving full time until 2015, when he broke his
leg while helping a friend cut down a tree.
After taking time off to heal, Johnson worked part-time when the
pain didn't keep him off the job, but eventually lost his job after
the pandemic hit. In 2020, Johnson said he received a letter from
the department telling him he was ineligible to collect
unemployment because he received SSDI benefits. He eventually
received PUA benefits, but used most of that to pay off the credit
card debt he racked up paying for basic expenses like food, gas,
electricity and health insurance.
"I knew it was going to be a long battle, but never in my wildest
dreams did I think the Department of Workforce Development would
take 14 months getting me (PUA benefits)," he said, referring to
the federal aid that ended Sept. 4.
"When you're living on credit cards and trying to make ends meet,
it doesn't work so well when you're sitting there waiting for any
type of income."
Forberger said because workers with disabilities cannot collect
unemployment benefits, the state is essentially encouraging
employers -- who pay for their former workers' unemployment
benefits -- to discriminate based on workers' disabilities.
"Wisconsin has, to its shame, created a perverse incentive for
employers to lay off disabled workers first," he said.
This story was produced as part of the NEW (Northeast Wisconsin)
News Lab. The nonprofit Wisconsin Watch (wisconsinwatch.org)
collaborates with Wisconsin Public Radio, PBS Wisconsin, other news
media and the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Journalism
and Mass Communication. All works created, published, posted or
disseminated by Wisconsin Watch do not necessarily reflect the
views or opinions of UW-Madison or any of its affiliates. [GN]
YOSEIRY GROCERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Perez Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR RAIMUNDO PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YOSEIRY GROCERY STORE INC. (d/b/a
YOSEIRY GROCERY STORE); ADRIANA ARISTY; and JULIO CASTILLO,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-07486 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 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 Perez was employed by the Defendants as delivery worker.
YOSEIRY GROCERY STORE INC. owns and operates a grocery store
located at Bronx, New York, under the name "Yoseiry Grocery Store."
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, New York 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
[*] Kutak Rock Attorneys Discuss Dismissed Bank Fee Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a case decided September 8, 2021 by the Circuit Court of Miller
County, Arkansas, a team of Kutak Rock litigators including Jess
Askew III, Fred Davis, McKenzie Raub, and Andrew King secured a
decision leading to the dismissal of a class action against a
regional bank client. The court's ruling rejected class-action
claims alleging a breach of contract with respect to overdraft and
insufficient funds fees. This is the first known dismissal of this
type of class-action case in the state of Arkansas.
In this recent dismissal, the Court determined that the contract
was unambiguous and clearly explained the customer's obligations
regarding overdrafts and insufficient funds: "The Plaintiffs
failure to have sufficient funds in the account is the reason for
the denial of payment and the fee charged each time the payment is
rejected for insufficient funds. This agreement as part of the
contract is clear and unambiguous."
Over the past two years, Kutak Rock attorneys have responded to six
consumer class-action lawsuits regarding bank and credit union
account fees. A total of sixteen such cases have been filed in
Arkansas during that time. Eight of those are still pending.
Kutak Rock's efforts have resulted in the dismissal of all six of
the cases it has defended, representing an unparalleled record of
success in Arkansas.
Kutak Rock's team of class-action litigators includes Fred Davis,
Andrew King, Kyle Unser, Jess Askew III, Andrew Tarvin and McKenzie
Raub. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***