/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210924.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, September 24, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 186
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Cannon Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Xaros Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products
ACCOUNT SERVICES: Lundie Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Silver Law Group Reminds of Oct. 4 Deadline
ADVANCED CLINICAL: Smith Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
ADVANCED DIAGNOSTIC: Bruce Katz Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
AETNA INC: Faces Class Action Over LGBTQ Discrimination
AIRWAY HEIGHTS, WA: Summary Judgment of Dismissal in Pete Upheld
ALEX AND ANI: Court Confirms Debt-for-Equity Plan
ALLEN INDEPENDENT: Sued Over Refusal to Implement Mask Policy
AMERICAN GUARDIAN: Prime Financial Balks at Commission Holdback
ANNOVIS BIO: Faces Cruz Suit Over Drop in Share Price
ANNOVIS BIO: Glancy Prongay Reminds of October 18 Deadline
APHRIA INC: Ont. Superior Court Certifies Securities Class Action
APPLE INC: Faces Pareas Suit Over Defective Laptops
APPSOLUTELY MEDIA: Faces TCPA Class Action Lawsuit in California
BAYSIDE INSURANCE: Summary Judgment in Moriarty Suit Affirmed
BMC WEST: Ramos Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
BOSTON BEER: Faces Siegel Suit Over Share Price Drop
BOSTON BEER: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
CAMPBELL SOUP: Mislabels Children's Food Products, Paschoal Says
CANADA: First Nations Employees File Discrimination Class Action
CANADA: Settlement Reached in Depo-Provera Class Action Lawsuit
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Gross Law Firm Reminds of October 26 Deadline
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 26 Deadline
CENTERSTATE BANK: Court Extends Class Cert. Briefing Dates
CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Barbiero Suit Over Unfair Investment Scheme
CIG LOGISTICS: Mobley Seeks Unpaid Wages for Well Site Operators
CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S: Harsman Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio
COASTAL FAMILY: Faces Phillps Class Suit Over Ransomware Attack
COINMARKETCAP OPCO: Manipulates Cryptocurrencies' Value, Says Cox
CONCHO RESOURCES: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL: Solis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CURRENEX INC: Antitrust Class Action Faces Hurdles, Says Experts
DELTA STAR: Wilson Labor Code Suit Removed to N.D. California
DIAMOND PET: Oct. 4 Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set
FIRST NATIONAL: Ghazaly Suit Removed to E.D. North Carolina
FLRISH INC: Show Cause Order Issued to Springbig in Calhoun Suit
FORD MOTOR: Davis Sues Over Defective Trunk Lid Wiring Harnesses
FRUIT KING: Faces Ambrosio Suit Over Stock Clerks' Unpaid Wages
GC SERVICES: Cohen Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
GEETA BROWN: Court Enters Amended Scheduling Order in Castillo
GEICO: Russo Class Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay
GIBSON BRANDS: Ormond Suit Removed to C.D. California
HAMILTON, TN: Jarnagin Seeks to Certify Class
HLD GARI LLC: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Masuda Suit Says
HOME DEPOT: Appiahs Seek Certification of Class Action
HYRECAR INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of October 26 Deadline
HYRECAR INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of October 26 Deadline
ILLINOIS DOC: Kainz Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Goodwin Sues Over Harmful Sunscreen Products
KANE FOOTWEAR: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
KASPIEN HOLDINGS: Spack Class Action Fully Resolved
KASPIEN HOLDINGS: Suit Over Magazine Subscriptions Resolved
KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline
KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 27 Deadline
KILOGEAR INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Glancy Prongay Remind of Oct. 15 Deadline
KRAFT HEINZ: Clarke Fraud Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to N.D. Ill.
LLR INC: Van Suit Wins Class Certification Bid
LONGEVERON INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 12 Deadline
LONGEVERON INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of November 12 Deadline
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Fluharty Sues Over Defective Bamboo Flooring
MASCHHOFFS LLC: Rene Reyes Sues Over Biometric Scanning & Storage
MD NIGERIA: Calicdan Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
MEL MANAGEMENT: Allen Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
MEREDITH CORP: Fact Discovery Must be Completed by July 1, 2022
MERIDIAN TRUST: Faces Baker Suit Over Illegal Sales Calls
MISSION PRODUCE: Settlement Reached in Former Employees' Suits
MORTON GALLERY: Camacho Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MVNBC CORP: Baten Sues Over Delivery Workers' Unpaid Wages
NEW YORK TIMES: Final Hearing on Moses' Settlement Set for Oct. 13
NR 1 TRANSPORT: Illinois Court Narrows Claims in Dawkins FLSA Suit
OMNIPONT MANAGEMENT: Bid to Extend Class Cert. Filing Partly OK'd
ORACLE CORP: Stockholder Putative Class Suit Underway in California
PARSLEY ENERGY: Streety Seeks to Send Notice to Class
PATTERSON COMPANIES: MOA Entered in Patterson Securities Class Suit
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Fishon Suit Seeks Class Certification
PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING: Misclassifies Distributors, Poletti Suit Says
PIZZA HUT: Patton FTSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
PLANET BEAUTY: Mason Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
QAD INC: Preliminary Injunction Hearing in NCP Suit Set for Oct. 1
RICHARD L. YELLEN: Fierro Sues Over N.Y. Judiciary Law Violation
SANDERSON FARMS: Law Firm Investigates Securities Act's Violations
SELECTQUOTE INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of October 15 Deadline
SMITHFIELD FOODS: Smith, et al. Seek Conditional Certification
SPROUT FOODS: Key Suit Moved From N.D. California to D. New Jersey
STAMPS.COM INC: Sabatini Sues Over Sale to Thoma Bravo
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims
TILLY'S INC: Settlement Talks in Gonzales Suit Still Ongoing
TILLY'S INC: Ward Appeals Denial of Class Certification Bid
TIMOTHY WARD: Middleton Suit Seeks to Certify Class, Subclass
TORRID LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Alonzo Suit Says
TOWER RESEARCH: Choi Seeks to Certify Class Action
TRUEACCORD CORP: Emel Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
TSM CORP: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Rios Suit Alleges
TWITTER INC: Enters Into Agreement to Settle Consolidated Suit
TYSOON FOODS: Settles Price-Fixing Class Lawsuit for $35 Million
U.S. BANK: Gillis Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
UNITED COAL: Chapman Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Tennessee
UNITED SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chavez Suit Alleges
UNITED STATES: Noncitizens Gets Class Status in Huisha-Huisha
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Suit Says
VERINT SYSTEMS: Unit Appeals Portions of Ruling in Tel Aviv Suit
VERUS INTERNATIONAL: Maryland Class Action Underway
VIEW INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of October 18 Deadline
VYSTAR CORP: Stipulation of Dismissal Filed in LaChapelle Suit
WATERDROP INC: Faces Sandoz Suit Over Share Price Drop
WATERDROP INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
WELLS FARGO: Echard Suit Moved From W.D. Wash. to N.D. California
WORKHORSE GROUP: Cohen Sues Over More Than 50% Drop of Stock Price
ZINUS INC: Mattresses Contain Fiberglass Particles, Class Suit Says
ZUMIEZ INC: Resolution in Principle Reached in Herrera Suit
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Balks at Imerys Suit, Seeks Payment for Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NCNW Sues J&J for Ads Targeting Black Women
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rapid-American Closes Ch. 11 With $12.3MM Trust
*********
3M COMPANY: Cannon Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES FRIERSON CANNON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03019-RMG
(D.S.C., September 17, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff as
a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming
foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, the suit alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Xaros Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN XAROS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03009-RMG
(D.S.C., September 17, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities, military and/or civilian firefighters, including the
Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. The Plaintiff relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products,
says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
ACCOUNT SERVICES: Lundie Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Account Services
Collections, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Marlena N. Lundie,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Account Services Collections, Inc., John Does 1-25,
1:21-cv-03880-TWT-CCB (N.D. Ga., Sept. 20, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Account Services Collections, Inc. --
http://www.accountservices-usa.com/-- has specialized in
collections since 1970.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
THE OAKS FIRM
3895 Brookgreen Pt.
Decatur, GA 30034
Phone: (404) 500-7861
Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Silver Law Group Reminds of Oct. 4 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Silver Law Group disclosed that Activision Blizzard, Inc. (ATVI) is
the subject of a class action lawsuit regarding alleged violations
of the federal securities laws. If you purchased shares of
Activision Blizzard between August 4, 2016 and July 27, 2021 (class
period), please contact Silver Law Group before October 4, 2021 at
(800) 975-4345 or at ssilver@silverlaw.com. Activision Blizzard is
a publicly-traded gaming and interactive entertainment company
whose products include franchises such as Call of Duty, World of
Warcraft, and Candy Crush. Activision Blizzard Allegedly
Discriminated Against Women And Minorities Following an
investigation by the California Department of Fair Employment and
Housing, the agency filed a lawsuit against the company that
alleged discrimination against female employees regarding
compensation, conditions of employment, promotion, and other terms,
and failed to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.
Almost 1,000 current and former Activision Blizzard employees
signed a letter calling the company's response to the lawsuit
"abhorrent and insulting". Current and former employees publicly
shared allegations of discrimination. Some gaming outlets stopped
covering games released by the company. The class action lawsuit
filed against Activision Blizzard alleges that the company was at
greater risk of legal and regulatory scrutiny that could negatively
impact the company, that the company failed to tell shareholders
about the investigation by California Department of Fair Employment
and Housing, and that as a result, the company's statements about
its business and prospects were materially false and misleading.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. (ATVI) is the subject of a class action
lawsuit regarding alleged violations of the federal securities
laws.
If you purchased shares of Activision Blizzard between August 4,
2016 and July 27, 2021 (class period), please contact Silver Law
Group before October 4, 2021 at (800) 975-4345 or at
ssilver@silverlaw.com.
Activision Blizzard is a publicly-traded gaming and interactive
entertainment company whose products include franchises such as
Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, and Candy Crush.
Activision Blizzard Allegedly Discriminated Against Women And
Minorities
Following an investigation by the California Department of Fair
Employment and Housing, the agency filed a lawsuit against the
company that alleged discrimination against female employees
regarding compensation, conditions of employment, promotion, and
other terms, and failed to prevent harassment, discrimination, and
retaliation.
Almost 1,000 current and former Activision Blizzard employees
signed a letter calling the company's response to the lawsuit
"abhorrent and insulting". Current and former employees publicly
shared allegations of discrimination. Some gaming outlets stopped
covering games released by the company.
The class action lawsuit filed against Activision Blizzard alleges
that the company was at greater risk of legal and regulatory
scrutiny that could negatively impact the company, that the company
failed to tell shareholders about the investigation by California
Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and that as a result,
the company's statements about its business and prospects were
materially false and misleading.
Recover Activision Blizzard, Inc. (ATVI) Investment Losses
Silver Law Group is a nationally-recognized law firm representing
victims of securities and investment fraud. Our attorneys represent
investors nationwide and internationally in class action lawsuits
against issuers in state and federal court and in arbitration
claims in cases of stockbroker misconduct.
Scott Silver, Silver Law Group's managing partner, is the chairman
of the Securities and Financial Fraud Group of the American
Association of Justice. Contact us today for a no-cost consultation
at ssilver@silverlaw.com or call (800) 975-4345. [GN]
ADVANCED CLINICAL: Smith Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ASHLEY SMITH and DONNA CHANG, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADVANCED CLINICAL
EMPLOYMENT STAFFING, LLC, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No.
21CV385614, was removed from the Superior Court of California for
the County of Santa Clara, for the Northern District of California
on September 20, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-07325 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay
minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to authorize and/or
permit meal breaks, failure to authorize and/or permit rest breaks,
failure to furnish accurate wage statements, failure to pay final
wages and penalties, and unfair business practices.
Advanced Clinical Employment Staffing, LLC is a hospital and health
care company based in Oneonta, Alabama. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Elizabeth B. Stallard, Esq.
DOWNEY BRAND LLP
621 Capitol Mall, 18th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 444-1000
Facsimile: (916) 444-2100
E-mail: estallard@downeybrand.com
ADVANCED DIAGNOSTIC: Bruce Katz Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE KATZ, M.D., P.C. individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADVANCED DIAGNOSTIC SOLUTIONS LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-07646 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 13, 2021) is a
putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
arising from the Defendant's fax advertisements without recipients'
consent.
Through this action, Plaintiff, a medical practice that received
Defendant's fax advertisement, seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's alleged illegal conduct which has resulted in
Plaintiff's and the Class' loss of time, invasion of privacy, loss
of use of their fax machines, and other costs.
Advanced Diagnostic offers services on medical equipment that it
also leases.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (508) 221-1510
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
AETNA INC: Faces Class Action Over LGBTQ Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------
ECBAWM and the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) have filed a
class action lawsuit against Aetna alleging discriminatory
practices against LGBTQ policy-holders seeking fertility
treatments. Emma Goidel, the plaintiff in the suit, and her spouse
seek to end this discriminatory policy and to recoup a portion of
the out-of-pocket costs they have incurred while undergoing IVF and
IUI fertility treatments.
The suit alleges that Aetna's policy for coverage of IVF and IUI
fertility treatments unfairly discriminates against LGBTQ couples
by requiring them to pay out of pocket for 12 cycles of IUI before
Aetna will provide them with coverage. However, Aetna's policy
provides immediate coverage, without any out-of-pocket cost, to
heterosexual couples who have not gotten pregnant after having
unprotected sex for 12 months.
"Aetna's policy is effectively a tax on LGBTQ policy-holders," said
Noel León, an ECBAWM attorney representing Ms. Goidel. "It
prevents LGBTQ individuals who are unable to shoulder the
considerable cost of fertility treatments -- disproportionately
those of color -- from becoming pregnant and thus denies their
equal rights to start families."
Ms. Goidel and her spouse are enrolled in Aetna's Student Health
Plan for Columbia University, which provides broad coverage for IUI
and IVF for heterosexual couples. As a result of Aetna's policy,
however, they have been forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars
for fertility treatment. They estimate that they paid nearly
$45,000 for one successful pregnancy. The plaintiff is suing on
behalf of herself and other LGBTQ individuals to end this
discriminatory policy enforced by Aetna.
"It is everyone's right to create a family, and to try to
biologically bear their own children if they so choose," said Ms.
Goidel. "Health insurance must protect that right by covering
medical costs equally for those who need fertility treatment to
reproduce -- not discriminating against queer people."
"Your insurance company should never be the reason you are denied
the chance to start a family," said Michelle Banker, Director of
Reproductive Rights and Health Litigation at NWLC, who is
representing the plaintiff. "Emma was forced to pay significantly
more and prevented from equal access to care, simply because she is
queer. Aetna must change its illegal policy immediately — for
patients like Emma, and especially for those who cannot afford this
care. Discrimination should have no place in health care and we
will make sure insurance companies like Aetna are held
accountable."
Individuals whose insurance policies unfairly discriminate against
LGBTQ individuals or couples seeking fertility treatments can
provide the attorneys with more information in three ways: by phone
at (202) 956-3077, by email to LGBTQFertilityLawsuit@nwlc.org, or
by filling out this Google form:
https://bit.ly/LGBTQFertilityLawsuit.
Plaintiffs are represented by ECBAWM attorneys Noel León and Zoe
Salzman and NWLC attorneys Michelle Banker, Sunu Chandy, Lauren
Gorodetsky, and Alison Tanner. [GN]
AIRWAY HEIGHTS, WA: Summary Judgment of Dismissal in Pete Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHONTO PETE and MONIE TULEE as individuals and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellants v. CITY OF
AIRWAY HEIGHTS, WASHINGTON; and CITY OF CHENEY, WASHINGTON,
Respondents, TERRI COOPER and JOHN DOE COOPER, and the marital
community thereof, Defendants, Case No. 37845-4-III (Wash. App.),
the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three, affirms the
summary judgment order of dismissal of Shonto Pete and Monie
Tulee's claims against the cities of Airway Heights and Cheney.
Facts
In 2019, Commissioner Terri Cooper of the Airway Heights Municipal
Court adjudicated cases against Shonto Pete and Monie Tulee.
Commissioner Cooper does not have a law degree and has never been
admitted to practice law. In 2002, Commissioner Cooper passed the
municipal court nonlawyer judicial officer qualification
examination, rendering her eligible to be appointed as a nonlawyer
judicial officer under former GR 8 (1998). In January 2003 she
completed the Washington State Judicial College and was sworn in as
a district court judicial officer.
Commissioner Cooper was initially appointed as a court
administrator and commissioner of the Medical Lake Municipal Court.
In 2004, Commissioner Cooper left the Medical Lake Municipal Court
and was appointed as a court administrator and commissioner for the
Cheney Municipal Court. In 2018 Commissioner Cooper was appointed
as a commissioner on the Airway Heights Municipal Court through an
interlocal agreement. At the time of the 2018 appointment, the city
of Airway Heights had an estimated population of 9,085 people, and
the city of Cheney had an estimated population of 12,200 people.
In 2019, Mr. Pete filed a class action lawsuit in Spokane County
Superior Court against Commissioner Cooper and her marital
community, and the cities of Airway Heights and Cheney. Ms. Tulle
later joined in the suit as a plaintiff. The complaint alleged
various constitutional violations, all based on the allegation that
Ms. Cooper was not qualified to serve as a court commissioner.
Prior to the proceedings resulting in this appeal, the claims
against Commissioner Cooper and her marital community were
dismissed. Airway Heights and Cheney then successfully moved for
summary judgment and the remaining claims of Mr. Pete and Ms. Tulle
were dismissed.
Mr. Pete and Ms. Tulle now appeal the judgment against them.
Analysis
Mr. Pete and Ms. Tulle claim the summary judgment order must be
reversed because Commissioner Cooper fails to meet the statutory
criteria for a municipal court commissioner. The statutes governing
the issue are RCW 3.50.075 and RCW 3.34.060. TCW 3.50.075 defines
the powers, qualifications required, and appointment procedure of
municipal court commissioners. RCW 3.34.060, which is referenced in
RCW 3.50.075(3), lists the eligibility and qualifications required
of district court judge.
The Court of Appeals explains that the plain meaning of RCW
3.50.075(3) is clear and unambiguous. Nonlawyers may only serve as
a municipal court commissioner if they have passed, by Jan. 1,
2003, the qualifying examination for lay judges of courts of
limited jurisdiction. No mention of a population limitation for
nonlawyer municipal court commissioners is made in RCW 3.50.075.
The reference in RCW 3.50.075(3) to RCW 3.34.060 only serves to
indicate that the "qualifying examination for lay judges for courts
of limited jurisdiction" required of nonlawyer municipal court
commissioners is the same examination as the "qualifying
examination for a lay candidate for judicial officer" required of
nonlawyer district court judges. Contrary to the arguments made on
appeal, RCW 3.34.060 does not graft a population requirement into
RCW 3.50.075.
Mr. Pete and Ms. Tulle argue that the qualifications of municipal
court commissioners should be commensurate with those of other
similar judicial officers. When it comes to district court judges,
municipal court judges, and municipal pro tem judges, the governing
statutes limit the eligibility of nonlawyers to districts with
5,000 or less people. Mr. Pete and Ms. Tulle claim municipal court
commissioners should be subject to the same population size
restriction.
The problem with this argument, the Court of Appeals finds, is it
runs counter to the statutory text. The Court of Appeals will not
override a statute's plan meaning based on policy preferences. It
says, the meaning of the statutes at issue in the case is plain.
The Court of Appeals therefore looks no further to resolve the
parties' dispute. Under the plain terms of the governing statutes,
Terri Cooper's status as a nonlawyer does not disqualify her from
serving as a municipal court commissioner, regardless of the size
of her district.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeals affirms the summary judgment order of
dismissal.
A majority of the panel has determined the Opinion will not be
printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed
for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 7, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/6vpnkudy from Leagle.com.
Chad Harrison Freebourn, Roberts Freeborn, PLLC, 1325 W 1st Ave.,
Ste. 303, in Spokane, Washington 99201-4600, Counsel for the
Appellant(s).
Stephen Maurice Lamberson, Etter, McMahon, Lamberson, Van Wert &
Oreskovich, P.C., 618 W Riverside Ave., Ste. 210, in Spokane,
Washington 99201-5048, Christopher Joseph Kerley --
ckerley@ecl-law.com -- Evans, Craven & Lackie, P.S., 818 W
Riverside Ave., Ste. 250, in Spokane, Washington 99201-0994,
Timothy Michael Lawlor -- TML@witherspoonkelley.com -- Witherspoon
Kelley, 422 W Riverside Ave., Ste. 1100, in Spokane, Washington
99201-0300, Casey Morgan Bruner -- cmb@witherspoonkelley.com --
Witherspoon Kelley, 422 W Riverside Ave., Ste. 1100, in Spokane,
Washington 99201-0300, Megan Christine Clark, Etter, McMahon,
Lamberson, Van Wert & Oreskovich, P.C., 618 W Riverside Ave., Ste.
210, in Spokane, Washington 99201-5048, Counsel for the
Respondent(s).
ALEX AND ANI: Court Confirms Debt-for-Equity Plan
-------------------------------------------------
Vince Sullivan of Law360 reports that the Chapter 11 plan of
jewelry retailer Alex and Ani LLC received approval Wednesday,
September 22, 2021, from a Delaware bankruptcy judge, with the
retailer's proposal to convert its funded debt to equity in the
company being presented on an uncontested basis.
During a virtual confirmation hearing, debtor attorney Allyson
Smith of Kirkland & Ellis LLP said that the company had been able
to achieve consensus among all creditor classes prior to the
hearing and that $111 million of secured debt would be converted
into 100% of the equity in a reorganized company.
About Alex and Ani LLC
Founded in 2004 by Carolyn Rafaelian, Alex and Ani has become a
premier jewelry brand, quickly gaining popularity because of the
novel and customizable nature of its signature expandable wire
bracelet. Alex and Ani has been headquartered in East Greenwich,
Rhode Island since 2014. Since opening its first retail store in
Newport, Rhode Island in 2009, Alex and Ani has expanded to over
100 retail store locations across the United States, Canada, and
Puerto Rico. On the Web: HTTP://www.alexandani.com/
Alex and Ani LLC and its affiliates sought Chapter 11 protection
(Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 21-10918) on June 9, 2021. In its
petition, Alex and Ani listed assets and liabilities of $100
million to $500 million each.
The Debtors tapped Kirkland & Ellis LLP as general bankruptcy
counsel; Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP as local bankruptcy
counsel; and Portage Point Partners, LLC, as financial advisors and
investment bankers. Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC is the notice
and claims agent.
ALLEN INDEPENDENT: Sued Over Refusal to Implement Mask Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE I b/n/f PARENTS OF JOHN DOE I; JANE DOE I, b/n/f PARENTS
OF JANE DOE I, et al., and on behalf of other students similarly
situated v. ALLEN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL, MS. AMY GNADT, President; MS.
KELLEY ROWLEY, Vice-President; MR. DAVID NOLL, Secretary and Board
Members MR. KEVIN CAMERON, MS. SARAH MITCHEL, DR. POLLY MONTGOMERY
and MR. VATSA RAMANTHAN; IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, Case No.
4:21-cv-00697-SDJ (S.D. Tex., Sept. 8, 2021), is brought over the
School District's refusal to implement a policy requiring its
students, teachers, staff or even guests to wear a face mask
putting children at significant risk.
According to the complaint, children are at extreme risk of getting
the current strain of the virus, known as the Delta Variant. The
Allen Independent School District does not require its students,
teachers, staff or even guests to wear a face mask putting kids at
significant risk. The District relies upon an Executive Order from
the Governor of Texas that purportedly does not permit a local
school board to have mask mandate.
The complaint adds that the School Board can easily fix the virus
transmission problem by simply requiring all students, teachers,
parents and visitors to follow current and ongoing guidelines as
set forth by the United States Department of Health & Human
Services Center For Disease Control and follow other recommended
safety measures.
JOHN DOE I lives with his parents in the Allen Independent School
District catchment area. He is a student at the Boone Elementary
School in the Allen ISD. JANE DOE I is the sibling of JOHN DOE I.
The Allen Independent School District is a school district
organized under the laws of the State of Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mr. Martin J. Cirkiel, Esq.
CIRKIEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1901 E. Palm Valley Blvd.
Round Rock, Texas 78664
Phone: (512) 244-6658
Facsimile: (512) 244-6014
Email: marty@cikrielaw.com
AMERICAN GUARDIAN: Prime Financial Balks at Commission Holdback
---------------------------------------------------------------
PRIME FINANCIAL CONNECTION, INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN GUARDIAN WARRANTY
SERVICES, INC. and AMERICAN GUARDIAN FUNDING CORPORATION, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2021L000979 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Dupage Cty., Sept.
14, 2021) is a putative class action lawsuit seeking a declaratory
judgment regarding the enforceability and terms of a document
entitled, "Amendment to Marketing Representative Agreement"
(hereinafter, "Holdback Amendment").
Prime Financial was an independent agent for the Defendants within
the State of Washington.
The Defendants issue and administrate vehicle service contracts,
guaranteed asset protection contracts and other ancillary
products.
According to the complaint, although the Holdback Amendment
purports to create certain contractual rights and obligations
between the parties, it omits material terms necessary to make it a
binding contract.
Among other things, the Holdback Amendment allegedly authorizes
American Guardian Warranty Services, Inc. to hold back a portion of
the commission due Prime Financial Connection, Inc. for purposes of
securing the obligations of dealers enrolled in American Guardian
Warranty Services, Inc.'s Funding Program but does not specify --
in either dollar or percentage terms -- how much of the commission
can be held back.
As a result of this and other material omissions, the Holdback
Amendment is fatally vague and ambiguous and must be set aside,
with any and all monies collected under the Holdback Amendment
returned to the parties from whom they were taken, asserts the
complaint.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremiah O'Connor, Esq.
FABRIZIO, HANSON, PEYLA & KA WINSKI
116 N. Chicago Street, Suite 200A
Joliet, IL 60432
Telephone: (815) 727-5445
E-mail: Joconnor.fhpk@gmail.com
- and -
Matthew V. Bartle, Esq.
David L. Marcus, Esq.
BARTLE + MARCUS LLC
116 W. 47th 11 Street, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 256-4614
Facsimile: (816) 222-0534
E-mail: mbartle@bmlawkc.com
dmarcus@bmlawkc.com
ANNOVIS BIO: Faces Cruz Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------
OBED MORONI CARRILLO CRUZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. ANNOVIS BIO, INC.; MARIA
MACCECCHINI; and JEFFREY MCGROARTY, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-04040 (E.D. Pa., Sept. 10, 2021) is a class action on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Annovis securities between May 21, 2021 and July 28, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue claims against
the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").
According to the complaint, on July 28, 2021, after the market
closed, Annovis reported interim clinical data from its Phase 2a
trial. Among other things, the Company reported that AD patients
twenty-five days after treatment failed to show statistically
significant improvement compared to the placebo. Annovis also
reported that, although patients showed cognitive improvements in
certain areas, the results were not statistically significant.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $65.94, or 60%, to
close at $43.50 per share on July 29, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
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, Defendants allegedly failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Annovis's ANVS401 did not show statistically
significant results across two patient populations as to factors
such as orientation, judgement, and problem solving; and (2) that,
as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
As a result of the Defendants' 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, the suit added.
ANNOVIS BIO, INC. operates as a biotechnology company. The Company
develops drugs for alzheimer's and parkinson's disease. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
Gonen Haklay, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A
101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Telephone: (215) 600-2817
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com
ghaklay@rosenlegal.com
ANNOVIS BIO: Glancy Prongay Reminds of October 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming October 18, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Annovis Bio, Inc. ("Annovis" or the "Company")
(NYSE: ANVS) securities between May 21, 2021 and July 28, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Annovis 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/annovis-bio-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.
Annovis is a clinical stage pharmaceutical company that is
developing therapies addressing neurodegeneration, such as
Alzheimer's disease ("AD"), Parkinson's disease ("PD"), and
Alzheimer's disease in Down syndrome ("AD-DS"). Its lead compound
is ANVS401 (Posiphen), an orally administrated drug which
purportedly inhibited the synthesis of neurotoxic proteins that are
the main cause of neurodegeneration.
On July 28, 2021, after the market closed, Annovis reported interim
clinical data from its Phase 2a trial. Among other things, the
Company reported that AD patients 25 days after treatment failed to
show statistically significant improvement compared to the placebo.
Annovis also reported that, although patients showed cognitive
improvements in certain areas, the results were not statistically
significant.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $65.94, or 60%, to
close at $43.50 per share on July 29, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Annovis's ANVS401 did not show statistically
significant results across two patient populations as to factors
such as orientation, judgement, and problem solving; and (2) as a
result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Annovis securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than October 18,
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]
APHRIA INC: Ont. Superior Court Certifies Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Gray, Esq., and R. Craig Gilchrist, Esq., of Torys LLP,
disclosed that in the recent decision of Vecchio Longo Consulting
Services Inc. v. Aphria Inc.1, Justice Perell of the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice certified a class action against the
cannabis company Aphria Inc. (Aphria), certain of its directors and
officers, and a group of investment banks which underwrote one of
Aphria's offerings. In the reasons, Justice Perell seeks to clarify
the law surrounding certain issues related to representative
plaintiffs in Ontario class actions and provide a model for how
representative plaintiff issues may be resolved by Ontario courts
in the future.
What you need to know
This class action relates to alleged misrepresentations made by
Aphria including in a prospectus released in connection with an
offering of Aphria shares.
The plaintiff proposed to bring a class action on behalf of
investors who had purchased securities on both the primary and
secondary markets. However, the proposed representative plaintiff
had only purchased Aphria shares on the secondary market and as a
result did not have a cause of action against the Underwriters who
were only sued for misrepresentations made in the primary market.
The Court held that the proposed representative plaintiff could not
act as a representative plaintiff for class members who purchased
Aphria shares on the primary market on the basis of earlier case
law which requires that a representative plaintiff in class action
must have a cause of action against each named defendant.
Despite determining that the proposed representative plaintiff did
not have a cause of action against the Underwriters, the Court
still conditionally certified the primary market claim and ordered
the Underwriters to produce a list of all of the respective
purchasers in the offering at issue, following which class counsel
would have an opportunity to try to appoint a suitable
representative plaintiff.
Factual background
The class action concerns Aphria, a publicly-traded cannabis
company. In January 2018, Aphria announced that it was acquiring
another public cannabis company, Nuuvera Inc., for approximately
$485 million (the Nuuvera Transaction). Following the completion of
the Nuuvera Transaction, in March 2018 it was revealed in the press
that certain Aphria insiders held undisclosed interests in Nuuvera
at the time of the Nuuvera Transaction, which Aphria confirmed was
accurate in May 2018.
In June 2018, Aphria issued common shares under a prospectus which
raised approximately $259 million (the Prospectus Offering). This
bought-deal offering was underwritten by a group of investment
banks (the Underwriters). It is alleged that the prospectus failed
to disclose a number of issues including: that the Nuuvera
Transaction involved an overvaluation of the acquired assets and
that Aphria's disclosure regarding the integrity of its internal
controls including those designed to avoid conflicts of interest
were not effective.
Following the prospectus offering, in July 2018, Aphria announced a
transaction known as the "LATAM Transaction" through which Aphria
acquired certain companies located in Latin America and the
Caribbean in exchange for Aprhia shares with a value of
approximately $274 million.
In December 2018, two short sellers publicly alleged that the
assets acquired in the LATAM Transaction were purchased by shell
companies -- some of which were controlled by Aphria insiders which
then sold these assets to another company before selling them to
Aphria at a substantial markup, resulting in Aphria acquiring
assets worth far less than their purchase price. Following this
report, Aphria's share price dropped by approximately 43% resulting
in a loss of $1.13 billion in market capitalization.
The class action
In January 2019, a proposed class action was commenced against
Aphria, certain of its directors and officers, and the
Underwriters. It alleged that the defendants misled the market from
January 2018 to December 2018 in relation to the Nuuvera
Transaction, the Prospectus Offering, and the LATAM Transaction
which resulted in the price of Aphria's shares being substantially
inflated until the release of the short-sellers' report. The
Underwriters are defendants in respect of claims relating to the
Prospectus Offering; the other defendants are named in respect of
the primary market and secondary market claims.
Justice Perell's decision
Justice Perell's decision granted relief on a number of matters,
including granting leave to assert the secondary market
misrepresentation claim under section 138.3, Part XXIII.1 of the
Ontario Securities Act, and certifying the secondary market
misrepresentation claim against Aphria and its directors and
officers.
The Underwriters contested the certification of the primary market
claim made under section 130, Part XXIII of the Ontario Securities
Act. The Underwriters argued that the primary market claim should
not be certified for two reasons:
There was no basis in fact to conclude there are two or more class
members that have a claim they wished to pursue for primary market
misrepresentation; and Notwithstanding that the proposed
representative plaintiff was eligible to pursue the secondary
market claim, it is not eligible to advance a primary market claim
as it does not have a cause of action against the Underwriters.
Justice Perell held that the first argument had no merit as the
test under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, does not
require the plaintiff to show some basis in fact that there was a
group of class members who wished to have their common complaint
determined. Rather, Justice Perell held that there was some basis
in fact, as alleged, to conclude that two or more purchasers from
the Underwriters suffered a loss connected to the Prospectus
Offering. Justice Perell further held that it was not a requirement
at the certification stage to show that there are two or more
persons who wished to pursue a claim but rather simply that there
are two or more persons who share the same complaint of purchasing
Aphria shares under the misapprehension that the prospectus was
honest and true. Justice Perell concluded on this issue that even
if the Underwriters were correct that no purchasers wish to pursue
a primary market claim, this will be resolved by all of the primary
market purchasers opting out of the class action. The second issue
engages a long-standing debate about standing and proposed class
actions.
The representative plaintiff issue
In respect of the Underwriters' second argument, it was clear on
the evidence that the proposed representative plaintiff had not
purchased Aphria shares on the primary market. As a result, the
Underwriters relied upon the Ragoonanan Principle, first developed
in the case of Ragoonanan Estate v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.2
and adopted by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Hughes v. Sunbeam
Corp. (Canada)3, to argue that since there was no plaintiff with a
cause of action against them the primary market claim could not be
certified.
The plaintiff argued that the Ragoonanan Principle did not bar it
from acting as the representative plaintiff for the primary market
claim because the Principle had been overturned by the Supreme
Court of Canada's decision in Bank of Montreal v. Marcotte4.
Justice Perell ultimately concluded that the Ragoonanan Principle
remained good law in Ontario and the Marcotte decision did not
overturn it which meant that the proposed representative plaintiff
was not suitable to pursue the primary market claim.
In support of this conclusion, Justice Perell referred to the first
principles associated with the Class Proceedings Act, 1992,
including section 2 of the Act which outlines that only a member of
the class may commence an action on behalf of other members of the
class. Justice Perell also noted that this section distinguished
Ontario's class action legislation from that of other provinces
which expressly permit non-class members to act as representative
plaintiffs.
Justice Perell then reviewed the case law which preceded Marcotte
on this issue, including Boulanger v. Johnson & Johnson Corp.5
which stands for the proposition that if a plaintiff has a cause of
action against a defendant, then the plaintiff is qualified to be a
representative plaintiff for the class members who have the same or
different causes of action against the defendant. Therefore, since
the plaintiff in this case had a cause of action against Aphria in
the secondary market, in theory they could act as the
representative plaintiff for primary market claims against Aphria.
However, since the plaintiff did not have any cause of action
against the Underwriters it could not act as representative
plaintiff against them.
Justice Perell then considered Marcotte in which the Supreme Court
concluded that a representative plaintiff in a class action
commenced in Quebec was suitable to act against defendants against
whom it did not have a cause of action. Justice Perell recognized
that class action jurisprudence has developed into a genuinely
national jurisprudence meaning that it is certainly possible that a
decision out of Quebec can yield a Supreme Court of Canada decision
which is binding on the class action regimes across the country.
However, Justice Perell also recognized that it is not inevitable
that all Supreme Court class action decisions establish a
nationwide precedent. Given the Supreme Court's focus in Marcotte
on Article 55 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure which requires
plaintiffs to have a "sufficient interest" in the action before
concluding that a "sufficient interest" need only include
identical, similar, or related questions of law or fact in order to
act as the representative plaintiff Justice Perell concluded that
Marcotte could not be read as a decision meant to have any effect
outside of Quebec's class action regime. As a result, Justice
Perell concluded that Marcotte did not overturn the Ragoonanan
Principle.
Having determined that the proposed representative plaintiff was
ineligible, Justice Perell was faced with what to do with a class
action which otherwise met the certification criteria. Ultimately,
Justice Perell decided to certify the primary market claim but on
the condition that class counsel appoint a representative plaintiff
who had purchased Aphria's shares on the primary market within 100
days. However, in order to assist class counsel, Justice Perell
also ordered the Underwriters to produce an affidavit listing the
names and contact information of purchasers of the prospectus
offering within 30 days relying upon section 5(3) of the Class
Proceedings Act, 1992 which requires parties to a certification
motion to provide the parties' best information on the number of
members in the class.
Key takeaways
Despite the fact that the Underwriters were successful in showing
that the proposed representative plaintiff was ineligible, this
ended up being a pyrrhic victory as Justice Perell still certified
the action against them. The decision lends support for the
argument that defendants may not be able to rely on an ineligible
representative plaintiff as grounds to defeat a certification
motion unless it can be shown that class counsel has all of the
relevant information required to try to recruit a suitable
representative plaintiff and has failed to do so.
Further, in this case a syndicate of five investment banks
participated in the offering at issue. It is unclear whether the
court will accept a single primary market purchaser who may have
only purchased Aphria securities from a single investment bank to
act against all of the Underwriters or whether class counsel will
be required to put forward a combination of representative
plaintiffs who, collectively, purchased Aphria securities from each
of the investment banks involved in a bought-deal financing.
Arguably, under the Ragoonanan Principle, the latter is required,
but the court's resolution of this issue remains to be seen.
1 2021 ONSC 5405.
2 (2000), 51 OR (3d) 603 (Sup Ct J).
3 (2002), 61 OR (3d) 433 (CA), leave to appeal to SCC ref’d
[2002] SCCA No. 446.
4 2014 SCC 55.
5 [2002] OJ No 1075 (Sup Ct J). [GN]
APPLE INC: Faces Pareas Suit Over Defective Laptops
---------------------------------------------------
DAPHNE PAREAS and DANIEL FRIEND, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. APPLE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 5:21-cv-07112-LHK (N.D. Cal., Sept. 14, 2021) seeks to
remedy violations of law in connection with the Defendant's design,
manufacture, marketing, advertising, selling, warranting, and
servicing of defective M1 MacBook Air laptop or M1 MacBook Pro
laptops, in violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False
Advertising Law, and the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
The complaint alleges that the laptops are designed and
manufactured with an inherent defect that compromises the display
screen. During ordinary usage the display screens of the laptops
(1) may become obscured with black or gray bars and/or "dead spots"
where no visual output is displayed and (2) are vulnerable to
cracks that obscure portions of the display. The Defendant
concealed, failed to disclose, or otherwise engaged in deceptive
marketing with respect to this defect, particularly with respect to
the quality of the laptops' display screen and their overall
reliability and durability, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Pareas placed an order on the Apple Online Store for a
13-inch MacBook Air with an M1 chip for $1,127.00, plus shipping
costs on November 27, 2020 while Plaintiff Friend purchased from
Apple's store a 2020 13.3" MacBook Pro with an M1 chip for
$1,338.06 on May 9, 2021.
Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in consumer electronics, computer software, and online
services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Selin Demir, Esq.
Nicholas Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
388 Market St., Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 489-7004
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
- and -
Robert Mackey, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT MACKEY
16320 Murphy Road
Sonora, CA 95370
APPSOLUTELY MEDIA: Faces TCPA Class Action Lawsuit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Street reports that two California men have sued search engine
optimization services company Appsolutely Media for making
pre-recorded voice calls to their cell phones without their
consent. The Central District of California complaint states one
cause of action for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA).
According to the filing, one of Appsolutely Media LLC's strategies
for marketing its services and enticing customers is telemarketing.
It reportedly does this by using pre-recorded messages.
On June 4, 2019, both plaintiffs said they received pre-recorded
calls on their cell phones advertising search engine optimization
services. In order to ascertain the identity of the caller, the
plaintiffs engaged, and determined that it was Appsolutely Media.
The calls were reportedly made without the consent of the
plaintiffs and in violation of the anti-spam law.
"Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds
of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse,
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide
class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls
from or on behalf of Defendant," the complaint says. Accordingly,
the lawsuit seeks to certify a "Pre-Recorded Call Class,"
consisting of people who received a pre-recorded or artificial
voice call from or on behalf of the defendant on their cell phones
in the last four years.
The plaintiffs seek an award of $500 in damages for each call made
in violation of the TCPA and $1,500 for each call in wilful/knowing
violation of the statute. The complaint also requests declaratory
relief and injunctive relief barring the defendant from committing
future violations.
The plaintiffs are represented by Kaufman P.A. [GN]
BAYSIDE INSURANCE: Summary Judgment in Moriarty Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELLE L. MORIARTY, Individually, as
Successor-In-Interest to Heron D. Moriarty, Decedent, on Behalf of
the Estate of Heron D. Moriarty, and on Behalf of the Class,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. BAYSIDE INSURANCE ASSOCIATES, INC., a
California Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and AMERICAN GENERAL
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Texas Corporation; DOES, 1 thru 20
Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20-56139 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
grant of summary judgment to Bayside.
Bayside was Moriarty's husband's insurance agent when he purchased
a life insurance policy from American General Life Insurance
Company ("AGLIC") in September 2012, with Moriarty as the sole
beneficiary. The policy's premiums went unpaid for several months
in 2016, and the policy lapsed due to those unpaid premiums nine
days before Moriarty's husband died.
Ms. Moriarty brought a putative class action against AGLIC and
asserts professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation
claims against Bayside. She contends that Bayside owed her "a
general and special duty of care to investigate the status of [the
life insurance policy] and its potential forfeiture and to fully
and promptly communicate what actions and steps could and should be
taken to avoid termination of the Policy." She alleges that Bayside
breached that duty with its handling of her email request for
certain policy information that she sought so that she could pay
the overdue policy premiums before the policy lapsed. Bayside
responded with the information that Moriarty would need to make a
payment and told Moriarty that it was "trying" to have a team
follow up with AGLIC. It never followed up.
The district court granted summary judgment to Bayside on the
professional negligence claim, finding that Bayside did not owe the
duty that Moriarty alleged. Later, the parties stipulated to the
dismissal of Moriarty's negligent misrepresentation claim, as duty
is an element of both claims. The district court then entered final
judgment for Bayside under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
The Ninth Circuit reviews the district court's grant of summary
judgment de novo and affirms. The Ninth Circuit explains that in
California, "whether a duty of care exists is a question of law for
the court." In the usual case, "insurance agents owe a limited duty
to their clients, which is only to use reasonable care, diligence,
and judgment in procuring the insurance requested by an insured."
Thus, in Kotlar v. Hartford Fire Insurance, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 246
(Ct. App. 2000), the California Court of Appeal held that an
insurance agent does not owe an insured a general duty to notify
him of an insurer's intent to cancel his insurance policy due to
nonpayment of premiums. California will impose a special duty
beyond this limited duty "when -- but only when -- one of three
things happens."
First, California will impose a special duty when "the agent
misrepresents the nature, extent or scope of the coverage being
offered or provided." Moriarty does not allege that Bayside
misrepresented the nature, extent, or scope of her husband's life
insurance policy. Bayside answered Moriarty's email inquiry with
correct information. And Bayside did not induce Moriarty's husband
to purchase the life insurance policy through affirmative
misrepresentations.
Second, California imposes a special duty to volunteer certain
information regarding additional or different coverage when "there
is a request or inquiry by the insured for a particular type or
extent of coverage." This exception, according to the Ninth
Circuit, by its own terms, doesn't apply in the case.
Third, California will impose a special duty when "the agent
assumes an additional duty by either express agreement or by
'holding itself out' as having expertise in a given field of
insurance being sought by the insured." The Ninth Circuit finds
that Bayside did not enter into an express agreement with the
Moriartys to tell them about the status of the life insurance
policy. Its statement that it was "trying to have a team follow up
on status" was not an express agreement to do so. Nor did Bayside
hold itself out as a life insurance expert. Bayside does not
specialize in the type of insurance at issue,nd Moriarty does not
otherwise show that Bayside held itself out as a life insurance
expert.
Moriarty also argues that Bayside owed her a duty because of their
"special relationship." But Moriarty has not shown that Bayside was
in a more "unique position" than the typical insurance agent to
protect her or her husband from injury, the Ninth Circuit finds.
Finally, Moriarty argues that the panel should impose an
affirmative duty on Bayside under Rowland v. Christian, 443 P.2d
561 (Cal. 1968). But the California Supreme Court recently held in
Brown v. USA Taekwondo, 483 P.3d 159, that "the multifactor test
set forth in Rowland was not designed as a freestanding means of
establishing duty, but instead as a means for deciding whether to
limit a duty derived from other sources."
Thus, as the district court found, Moriarty's professional
negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims fail because she
has not established an essential element -- duty.
In light of the foregoing, the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 7, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/r9ry2ukz from Leagle.com.
BMC WEST: Ramos Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GABRIEL RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BMC WEST, LLC; and DOES 1 TO 100,
inclusive, Case No. 21STCV30674, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
September 17, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-07471 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid
rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely
paid, non-compliant wage statements, unreimbursed business
expenses, and unfair business practices.
BMC West, LLC is a building materials supplier based in Dallas,
Texas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew B. Golper, Esq.
BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT, LLP
15760 Ventura Boulevard, Eighteenth Floor
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 508-3700
Facsimile: (818) 506-4827
E-mail: mgolper@brgslaw.com
BOSTON BEER: Faces Siegel Suit Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH SIEGEL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. THE BOSTON BEER COMPANY, INC., DAVID A.
BURWICK, FRANK H. SMALLA, and C. JAMES KOCH, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-07693 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2021) is a class action on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Boston Beer securities between April 22, 2021 and September 8,
2021, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the 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 allegedly failed to
disclose to investors: (1) that Boston Beer's hard seltzer sales
were decelerating; (2) that, as a result, Boston Beer was
reasonably likely to incur inventory write-offs; (3) that the
Company was reasonably likely to incur shortfall fees payable to
third party brewers; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Boston
Beer's financial results would be adversely impacted; and (5) 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.
The complaint further asserts that the Company's share price fell
$21.09, or 3.7%, to close at $538.31 per share on September 9,
2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
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, asserts the complaint.
Plaintiff Joseph Siegel, purchased Boston Beer securities during
the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal
securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements
and/or material omissions alleged herein.
Boston Beer is a high-end alcoholic beverage company that produces
hard seltzer, malt beverages, and hard cider at its cidery and
under contractual arrangements at other brewery locations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
BOSTON BEER: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), on Sept. 14 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Siegel v. The
Boston Beer Company, Inc., et al., (Case No. 21-cv-7693) on behalf
of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired The
Boston Beer Company, Inc. ("Boston Beer" or the "Company") (NYSE:
SAM) securities between April 22, 2021 and September 8, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from September
14, 2021, the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff in this action.
If you suffered a loss on your Boston Beer 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/the-boston-beer-company-inc/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On July 22, 2021, after the market closed, 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. The Company 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, the Company's share price fell $246.54, or 26%, to
close at $701.00 per share on July 23, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
On September 8, 2021, after the market closed, Boston Beer withdrew
its 2021 financial guidance, citing decelerating sales of hard
seltzer products. The Company 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, the Company's share price fell $21.09, or 3.7%, to
close at $538.31 per share on September 9, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Boston Beer's hard seltzer sales were
decelerating; (2) that, as a result, Boston Beer was reasonably
likely to incur inventory write-offs; (3) that the Company was
reasonably likely to incur shortfall fees payable to third party
brewers; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Boston Beer's
financial results would be adversely impacted; and (5) 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 Boston Beer securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60
days from this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]
CAMPBELL SOUP: Mislabels Children's Food Products, Paschoal Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL PASCHOAL, LISA CHONG, and ADINA RINGLER as individuals, on
behalf of themselves, the general public and those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY and SUNMAID GROWERS
OF CALIFORNIA, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-07029 (N.D. Cal., Sept.
10, 2021) seeks redress for Defendants' deceptive and unlawful
practices in labeling and marketing their Plum Organics brand baby
and toddler food products in violation of the California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the California Business and
Professions Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendants misbrand their baby and
toddler food products by making nutrient content claims on the
product packages that are strictly prohibited by the Food and Drug
Administration, and by misleading purchasers, including Plaintiffs,
into believing that their products are healthier than other
products for children under two years of age in order to induce
parents into purchasing Defendants' products. The conduct allegedly
intends to profit from parents' increasing desire to purchase
healthy food for their young children. The Defendant's misbranding
has caused Plaintiffs and members of the class to pay a price
premium for the products, the suit added.
The Defendants manufacture, distribute, market, advertise, and sell
a variety of baby and toddler food products under the brand name
"Plum Organics."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
Hayley Reynolds, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 639-9090
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
CANADA: First Nations Employees File Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Kaufmann, writing for Calgary Herald, reports that allegations
of racism against First Nations staff at federal departments meant
to advance Indigenous people have led to a class-action lawsuit.
Calgary-based legal firm Guardian Law Group is representing
Calgarian Letitia Wells, who said she took a leave of absence from
Indian Oil & Gas Canada (IOGC) after her complaints of
discriminatory treatment, abusive conduct and denied advancement
were ignored.
The Blackfoot woman said she was then fired from her job with no
explanation.
The suit contends ministries not limited to Wells' employer are
also environments rife with racist behaviour and harassment, and
where First Nations cultural practises are demeaned, with
Indigenous women being the most common victims.
"The Government of Canada has an obligation to protect the
well-being of all its employees and citizens, but that duty is
particularly crucial when considering the past injustices
Indigenous peoples have experienced at the hands of the federal
government," said Guardian Law lawyer and partner Mathew Farrell.
"This is happening in the very ministries meant to make the lives
of Indigenous people better -- it's shocking and concerning."
Twenty-five First Nations federal employees from across the country
-- most of them women and the majority employed at IOGC -- have
signed on to the action, said Farrell.
He expects more complainants to come forward.
"We have almost more people than any other class action I've seen
before, and that was even before it was filed," said Farrell.
The firm said Wells' co-worker, Yvette Zentner of the Siksika
Nation east of Calgary, has chosen to be co-representative in the
action.
"I work in a toxic work environment where I have been discriminated
against and harassed, and reporting problems to upper management
has resulted in no changes, so it continues to happen," said
Zentner, who also lives in Calgary.
"Many of my Indigenous co-workers and myself have suffered from
anxiety and stress-related disorders resulting from this treatment
or worse."
The class action suit is seeking $25 million in punitive damages,
said Farrell.
None of the allegations has been proven in court and a statement of
defence has yet to be filed.
Federal officials have said they take the allegations extremely
seriously and that action will be taken to eliminate all forms of
racism and discrimination.
The lawsuit comes as Canada continues to grapple with the guilt and
legacy of residential schools, which sought to assimilate First
Nations children through often brutal treatment and by tearing them
away from their families. [GN]
CANADA: Settlement Reached in Depo-Provera Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Canada-wide settlement agreement was recently reached in a class
action related to the use of Depo-Provera, an injectable form of
birth control, and bone mineral density loss.
In the class action, which was authorized on May 28, 2008, the
representative plaintiff alleges that Pfizer misrepresented the
risks associated with the use of Depo-Provera by failing to
indicate that people who use Depo-Provera may experience a
significant and possibly irreversible bone mineral density loss
that could lead to osteopenia or osteoporosis.
Proposed Settlement
The proposed settlement applies to every person domiciled in Canada
who claims to be suffering, or to have suffered, a loss of bone
mineral density owing to the use of Depo-Provera before May 31,
2010, and the settlement provides for payment by the defendants of
$1,913,750.00 to the class and $262,500.00 to the provincial health
insurers. If the Court approves the settlement, class members who
meet the eligibility criteria will receive compensation for
osteopenia, osteoporosis, and fragility fractures.
The proposed settlement is not an admission of liability on the
part of Pfizer, nor has there been any finding of liability by the
Court against Pfizer.
Court Approval
To become effective, the proposed settlement must be approved by
the Quebec Superior Court. The representative plaintiff will also
ask the Court to approve the compensation protocol, which sets out
the rules for awarding compensation to class members, the class
counsel fees, and the applicable disbursements and taxes. The
approval hearing before the Court is scheduled to proceed on
October 26, 2021. It will be possible to attend the approval
hearing by videoconference. Those interested in attending may visit
www.depoprovera.ca to find out the exact time of the hearing and
how to attend.
In order to object to the settlement or to legal fees, class
members must send a written objection to info@belleaulapointe.com
no later than October 16, 2021.
Claims Procedure
Class members can register now with the Claims Administrator at
www.depoprovera.ca to be notified when they will be able to submit
their claim. Those who believe they are eligible will find more
information at this address about the documents they must submit in
support of their claim and can now take steps to retrieve these
documents.
Please note that the proposed deadline for submitting a claim is
March 1, 2022.
More information on rights and options provided by the settlement
agreement is available at www.depoprovera.ca.
The law firms of Belleau Lapointe s.e.n.c.r.l. and Siskinds LLP
represent the Class Members and can be contacted as follows:
Belleau Lapointe, s.e.n.c.r.l.
300 Place d'Youville, Suite B-10
Montreal, Quebec H2Y 2B6
Phone: 1-888-987-6701
Email: info@belleaulapointe.com
Siskinds, LLP
680 Waterloo Street, P.O. Box 2520
London, Ontario N6A 3V8
Phone: 1-800-461-6166
Email: depoprovera@siskinds.com
About Siskinds LLP
Siskinds LLP -- http://www.siskinds.com/-- is a pioneer in class
action lawsuits and has been recognized as a top-tier Canadian firm
by the Chambers and Partners, a global legal review organization,
in their 2022 guide. The class actions team, comprised of 25
lawyers in Ontario and Quebec, act exclusively for plaintiffs.
About Belleau Lapointe
Belleau Lapointe is a boutique law firm based in Montreal
specializing in class actions on behalf of plaintiffs and in
commercial litigation. [GN]
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Gross Law Firm Reminds of October 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Cassava Sciences,
Inc. (NASDAQ: SAVA).
Shareholders who purchased shares of SAVA during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
CONTACT US HERE:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/cassava-sciences-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=19596&from=5
CLASS PERIOD: February 2, 2021 to August 24, 2021
ALLEGATIONS : The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) 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.
DEADLINE: October 26, 2021 Shareholders should not delay in
registering for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/cassava-sciences-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=19596&from=5
NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of SAVA during the timeframe listed above, you
will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you
with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The
deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is October 26, 2021. There
is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case.
WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 26 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Cassava Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: SAVA) ("Cassava")
between February 2, 2021 and August 24, 2021. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas. To get more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cassava-sciences-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19565&wire=5
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
Cassava Sciences, Inc. NEWS - SAVA NEWS
CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (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.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Cassava,
you have until October 26, 2021 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Cassava securities between
February 2, 2021 and August 24, 2021, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cassava-sciences-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19565&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 80 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed 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]
CENTERSTATE BANK: Court Extends Class Cert. Briefing Dates
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Precision Roofing of N.
Florida, Inc. v. Centerstate Bank, Case No. 3:20-cv-00352 (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Brian J. Davis entered an endorsed order
granting the joint motion for enlargement of time relating to class
certification briefing as follows:
-- Defendant shall file its response to motion to certify
class on or before October 25, 2021.
-- Plaintiff shall file its reply no later than December 6,
2021.
The nature of suit states diversity -- breach of contract
Precision Roofing is a locally owned and operated State Certified
roofing company specializing in all types of residential and
commercial roofing and repairs.
CenterState is a financial holding company.[CC]
CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Barbiero Suit Over Unfair Investment Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN MARIE BARBIERO; KIMBERLY JO LOPEZ; and WILLIAM KENNETH
LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CHARLES SCHWAB INVESTMENT ADVISORY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:21-cv-07034-LB (N.D. Cal., Sept. 10, 2021) alleges that
the Defendant breached the fiduciary and other legal duties it owed
to the Plaintiffs and the proposed Class.
According to the complaint, the Defendant manage about $54 billion
worth of investments for retail stock market investors through a
so-called "robo-advisor" investment-advice program called Schwab
Intelligent Portfolios ("Intelligent Portfolios" or "SIP Program"),
which the Defendant launched in 2015.
The Plaintiffs allege that in order to generate the bumper crop of
cash sweeps income for itself and its corporate parent, the
Defendant systematically kept the "Intelligent Portfolios" accounts
of the Plaintiffs and the proposed Class over-concentrated in cash
during the white-hot boom years of America's recent stock market.
This caused the Plaintiffs and the proposed Class foreseeably to
miss out on market gains they would have enjoyed had the Defendant
instead managed their "Intelligent Portfolios" accounts loyally and
prudently and without the Defendant placing its own interests.
Allegedly, the Defendant systematically has violated its fiduciary
and other legal duties here by placing its interests by
over-concentrating the Plaintiffs' SIP Program accounts in cash
relative to other assets. The Defendant caused the assets of the
Plaintiffs and the proposed Class held in the SIP Program to be
over-allocated to cash in order to maximize the Defendant's income
from the so-called "Sweep Program" that is part of the "Intelligent
Portfolios" platform. The Defendant did this at the expense of the
Plaintiffs and the proposed Class here. Because the Defendant did
this, the Plaintiffs and the proposed Class paid hundreds of
millions of dollars in unwarranted and unfair cash sweeps to the
Defendant and collectively missed out on over $500 million in
portfolio growth since the inception of the SIP Program, says the
suit.
Charles Schwab Investment Advisory, Inc. provides investment
advisory services. The Company offers portfolio management,
investment strategies, retirement planning, trading, research, and
other financial services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
CIG LOGISTICS: Mobley Seeks Unpaid Wages for Well Site Operators
----------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD MOBLEY, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. CIG Logistics LLC, and Continental Intermodal Group
-- Trucking LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00920 (D.N.M., Sept. 20, 2021)
seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime wages, and all
other available relief under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.
The Defendants employed Plaintiff as an hourly non-exempt well site
operator (WSO). The Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek.
Accordingly, WSO typically work at least 40 hours per workweek. WSO
typically worked multiple-day shifts away from their home
communities. Because the worksites were away from their home
communities, WSO typically stayed overnight in man camps during the
scheduled work shifts.
WSO spent most of the day before and after their shifts driving
hundreds of miles to and from the job sites. This travel cut across
WSO's normal working hours during both regular working days and
non-working days.
The identity of all WSO is unknown at this time but is known to
Defendant and is contained in Defendant's records. The Defendant
did not count time spent traveling as hours worked for purposes of
determining overtime eligibility. Consequently, Defendant failed to
pay proper wages, including overtime wages to Plaintiff and other
similarly situated individuals, the suit asserts.
At all material times, Defendant willfully deprived WSO of proper
wages, including overtime wages. The Defendant knew that WSO were
working overtime hours and hours for which they were not
compensated at an overtime rate when they traveled to job sites,
added the suit.
CIG provided fracking sand and onsite sand service to fracking
companies in multiple states. The Defendants employed Plaintiff and
other WSO to work for them in the States of Texas, New Mexico, and
North Dakota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
TRAN LAW FIRM
2537 South Gessner Road, Suite 104
Houston, TX 77063
Telephone: (713) 223-8855
E-mail: trang@tranlf.com
service@tranlf.com
CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S: Harsman Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KIMBERLY HARSMAN, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S
HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Case No. A2102965, was removed
from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Ohio, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on September
17, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Ohio assigned Case
No. 1:21-cv-00597-TSB to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged enforcement of a
policy which requires their hospital employees to receive the COVID
19 vaccine or suffer adverse employment consequences.
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center is an academic
pediatric acute care children's hospital based in Cincinnati, Ohio.
[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
William A. Posey, Esq.
James E. Burke, Esq.
Bryce J. Yoder, Esq.
Amanda B. Stubblefield, Esq.
KEATING MUETHING & KLEKAMP PLL
One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 579-6400
Facsimile: (513) 579-6457
E-mail: wposey@kmklaw.com
jburke@kmklaw.com
byoder@kmklaw.com
astubblefield@kmklaw.com
- and –
Thomas J. Wiencek, Esq.
BON SECOURS MERCY HEALTH
388 S. Main Street, Suite 500
Akron, OH 44311
Telephone: (513) 639-0196
E-mail: TJWiencek@mercy.com
COASTAL FAMILY: Faces Phillps Class Suit Over Ransomware Attack
---------------------------------------------------------------
TAMMY PHILLPS, LOUIS LUMPKIN and ANTONIA FOXWORTH, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COASTAL FAMILY HEALTH
CENTER, Case No. 1:21-cv-00404-KD-M (S.D. Ala., Sept. 20, 2021) is
a class action arising out of the recent ransomware attack and data
breach that was perpetrated against the Defendant.
On June 4, 2021, the Defendant learned that an unauthorized actor
had attempted to deploy ransomware to encrypt its system and copied
files. The Defendant engaged a forensic investigation firm to
determine the nature and scope of this incident.
The data breach resulted in unauthorized access and exfiltration of
highly sensitive and personal information (Private Information).
As a result of the alleged data breach, the Plaintiffs and
approximately 62,342 Class Members suffered present injury and
damages in the form of identity theft, out-of-pocket expenses and
the value of the time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the
effects of the unauthorized access, exfiltration, and subsequent
criminal misuse of their sensitive and highly personal
information.
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included
names, addresses, Social Security numbers, health insurance
information, and health and treatment information. The
healthcare-specific data compromised is protected health
information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996, and information such as Plaintiff's
Social Security number is deemed personally identifiable
information.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiffs and other Class Members that their information had
been subject to the unauthorized access of a third party.
The Plaintiffs also seek remedies including, but not limited to,
compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and
injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data
security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit
monitoring services funded by Defendant.
Defendant Coastal Family is a federally qualified community health
center established in 1976 as a 501c private, not-for-profit
corporation with its principal place of business at 1046 Division
Street, Biloxi, Mississippi.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Taylor Bartlett, Esq.
HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC
2224 1st Avenue N.
Birmingham, AL35203
Telephone: (205) 326-3336
Facsimile: (205) 380-8085
E-mail: Taylor@hgdlawfirm.com
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
David K. Lietz, Esq.
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dlietz@masonllp.com
gklinger@masonllp.com
COINMARKETCAP OPCO: Manipulates Cryptocurrencies' Value, Says Cox
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Cox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CoinMarketCap OpCo, LLC, Binance Capital
Management Co., Ltd. d/b/a Binance and Binance.com, BAM Trading
Services Inc. d/b/a Binance.US, Changpeng Zhao, Catherine Coley, Yi
He, Ted Lin, and Does I-X, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08197-JAT
(D. Ariz., Sept. 13, 2021) alleges that the Defendants have worked
by various unlawful means to artificially suppress the value of HEX
cryptocurrency and artificially inflate the value of other
cryptocurrencies.
The complaint asserts that the Defendants have violated the
Commodity Exchange Act as they directly or indirectly participated
in the artificial manipulation of the prices of one or more
commodities by misrepresenting HEX cryptocurrency's ranking.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff and the Class have allegedly suffered
damages due to Defendants' fraud on the market in that they
received artificially suppressed prices in exchange for their units
of HEX in violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act.
CoinMarketCap OpCo, LLC is a coin ranking site. CoinMarketCap.com
is owned by Defendant Binance Capital Management Co., Ltd., a
cryptocurrency exchange.
BAM Trading Services Inc. is Binance's U.S. affiliate.
Binance and Binance.US are also CoinMarketCap.com's affiliated
exchanges.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George Wentz, Jr., Esq.
THE DAVILLIER LAW GROUP, LLC
414 Church St., Suite 308
Sandpoint, ID 83864
Telephone: (208) 920-6140
E-mail: gwentz@davillierlawgroup.com
- and -
Alexander Kolodin, Esq.
Christopher Viskovic, Esq.
THE DAVILLIER LAW GROUP, LLC
3443 N. Central Ave., Suite 1009
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Telephone: (602) 730-2985
E-mail: akolodin@davillierlawgroup.com
cviskovic@davillierlawgroup.com
CONCHO RESOURCES: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of Concho Resources Inc.
(NYSE:CXO). The case is brought against Concho Resources Inc.,
ConocoPhillips, successor-in-interest to Concho, and certain Concho
officers and directors. The case is currently in the lead plaintiff
stage. Investors who purchased Concho common stock between February
21, 2018 and July 31, 2019 may contact the Thornton Law Firm's
investor protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/Concho
for more information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com
or call 617-531-3917.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Concho
The case alleges that the Defendants made misleading statements to
investors and failed to disclose that: (1) the well spacing at
Dominator was aggressive and highly risky, and premised on no
reasonable basis to believe it would work as intended; (2) Concho's
practice of implementing tighter well spacing was not relegated to
a handful of 'tests' and therefore more widespread than the market
was led to believe; (3) it was known or recklessly disregarded that
any measures to mitigate well spacing risks were non-existent or
impossible; (4) these risks had manifested during the Class Period,
causing underground well interference and permanently decreasing
production, forcing the Company to scale back production targets
and adopt more conservative spacing measures in its other projects;
and (5) it would take multiple quarters to unwind the impacts of
the widespread well spacing failure.
Interested Concho investors have until September 28, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class
members in managing the class action. Investors do not need to be a
lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. If investors choose
to take no action, they can remain an absent class member. The
class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law Firm is
not currently representing a plaintiff who filed a complaint but is
investigating the case on behalf of investors interested in being a
lead plaintiff.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Concho
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.
CONTACT:
Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/Concho [GN]
CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL: Solis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Core-Mark
International, Inc. The case is styled as Jennifer Solis, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Core-Mark
International, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. BCV-21-102117
(Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Sept. 9, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Core-Mark -- https://www.core-mark.com/ -- is one of the largest
and most valued marketers of fresh and broad-line supply solutions
to the convenience retail industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Isandra Y. Fernandez, Esq.
10045 SW 111th St.
Miami, FL 33176-3462
Phone: 305-439-7872
Fax: 305-270-3203
CURRENEX INC: Antitrust Class Action Faces Hurdles, Says Experts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Matthews, writing for Risk.net, reports that a proposed
class-action lawsuit accusing foreign exchange trading platform
Currenex of having secret priority agreements with several
liquidity providers faces several hurdles to success, say legal
experts.
Currenex, its parent company State Street, Goldman Sachs, HC
Technologies and several unnamed defendants were named as targets
in an August 4 federal lawsuit that alleges antitrust violations,
fraud and racketeering stemming from secret priority agreements the
platform had with the LPs. [GN]
DELTA STAR: Wilson Labor Code Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MAX WILSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DELTA STAR, INC., and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 21-CIV-04448, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
September 20, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-07326 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal
breaks, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to pay minimum
wage, failure to timely pay all wages upon separation from
employment, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to
reimburse business expenses, and unfair business practices.
Delta Star, Inc. is a manufacturer of medium-power transformers,
mobile transformers, and mobile substations, headquartered in
Virginia. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq.
Olga Savage, Esq.
PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP
1117 S. California Ave., Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: (650) 645-9000
Facsimile: (619) 235-0398
E-mail: tyler.paetkau@procopio.com
olga.savage@procopio.com
DIAMOND PET: Oct. 4 Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Free Stuff Finder reports that if you've purchased select Diamond
Pet Foods products between March 12, 2017 and May 3, 2021, you may
be eligible to receive a cash settlement. Just go here and fill out
the form with your information. You can receive up to $100 if you
have proof of purchase or payments of $5 if you don't. Your Claim
Form must be submitted electronically on their website by October
4, 2021.
This class action was filed against Diamond Pet Food for violating
state laws regarding the labeling and marketing of certain Taste of
the Wild and Kirkland Nature's Domain products. The company denies
all charges but has submitted a Proposed Settlement which the court
in charge of the case has yet to rule on. You can see all products
included in the Proposed Settlement and learn more about the case
here!
Note that the deadlines may be moved, canceled or otherwise
modified. Keep an eye out on the Settlement Website for updates and
further details. If the Settlement is approved by the Court,
payment may take several months. [GN]
FIRST NATIONAL: Ghazaly Suit Removed to E.D. North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dora Simmons Ghazaly, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. First National Collection Bureau,
Inc., Case No. 21-CVS-4888 was removed from the Cumberland County
Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina on Sept. 9, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00362-FL to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
First National Collection Bureau, Inc. -- http://www.fncbinc.com/
-- is an agency that collects debt on behalf of a variety of
creditor clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
David Anthony Grassi, Esq.
THE ECHOLS FIRM, LLC
224 Oakland Avenue
Rock Hill, SC 29730
Phone: (803) 329-8982
Email: david.grassi@theecholsfirm.com
FLRISH INC: Show Cause Order Issued to Springbig in Calhoun Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GIA CALHOUN, Plaintiff v. FLRISH, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-08212-JCS (N.D. Cal.), Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph
C. Spero of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California ordered non-party Springbig, Inc., to show cause why the
two administrative motions to file under seal should not be
denied.
Plaintiff Calhoun moves to file one paragraph of her amended
complaint under seal, based on a confidentiality designation by
non-party Springbig. The same proposed redaction is at issue in two
separate administrative motions to file under seal, one pertaining
to Calhoun's since-granted motion for leave to amend, and the other
pertaining to the amended complaint she filed as a separate docket
entry after the Court granted her motion.
Springbig filed a declaration by its CFO Paul Sykes in response to
Calhoun's first administrative motion, which offers the following
justification for sealing:
"4. Paragraph 27 of the First Amended Class Action Complaint
contains a gratuitous allegation taken from Springbig's 30(b)(6)
deposition testimony, which Springbig (a non-party) has designated
Confidential. While Springbig maintains that Plaintiff has taken
testimony out of context and, effectively, misquoted Springbig's
testimony, it is clear that the information Plaintiff discusses
came from Springbig's confidential deposition testimony concerning
its trade secret and confidential software and methodology. I
understand that Plaintiff sought to utilize this information
previously, and it was sealed in a joint discovery letter pursuant
to my declaration.
5. Springbig competes as a service provider in what is a
highly competitive marketplace for loyalty software services, and
maintains the inner-workings of its software and its methodologies
in strict confidentiality. The public disclosure of this
information would cause harm to Springbig and it would allow
Springbig's existing or potential competitors to view, understand
(and potentially emulate) Springbig's methodology and processes."
The deadline for responding to the second administrative motion has
not yet expired.
Judge Spero states that a party seeking to overcome the presumption
of public access to documents filed in judicial proceedings
generally must establish "compelling reasons" to file documents
under seal. A lower standard of "good cause" applies to documents
submitted in connection with motions that are no "more than
tangentially related to the merits of a case," including discovery
motions. The fact that the Court previously sealed similar
information in connection with a discovery dispute does not
indicate that Springbig presented the "compelling reasons"
necessary for sealing a portion of a complaint. The previous
sealing motion also dealt with more specific information than is at
issue.
Judge Spero holds that Sykes' current declaration does not meet the
"compelling reasons" standard. For one thing, it is not clear that
Springbig considers any portion of the paragraph at issue to be
accurate. If it is not accurate, it cannot disclose Springbig's
trade secrets. The paragraph at issue also consists of only two
sentences describing Springbig's alleged methods at a very high
level. Springbig has not addressed whether the methods described in
this paragraph -- to the extent it actually uses them -- are common
in the industry or unique to Springbig, such that using these
methods provides Springbig an edge over its competition that it
would lose if others knew of them. Springbig must also address
whether it takes steps to keep the particular information included
in the amended complaint confidential in the course of its
business.
Judge Spero, therefore, ordered Springbig to show cause why these
two administrative motions to file under seal should not be denied,
by filing a more detailed declaration addressing these concerns as
to both the basic method described in the first sentence of
paragraph 27 and the somewhat more specific process described in
the second sentence of that paragraph.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 7, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/79bum8st from Leagle.com.
FORD MOTOR: Davis Sues Over Defective Trunk Lid Wiring Harnesses
----------------------------------------------------------------
MERHLE DAVIS and THOMAS YETTER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-11474 (D. Mass., Sept. 9, 2021) arises
from the Defendant's alleged unfair methods of competition and
unfair or deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of trade or
commerce in violation of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter
93A.
The complaint asserts that Model year 2015–2017 Ford Mustang
vehicles have a dangerous and defective trunk lid wiring harness
that causes numerous features, including critical safety equipment,
to function intermittently or not at all. Allegedly, the defective
wiring harness can and does interfere with the backup camera, trunk
release, trunk light, and satellite radio reception, and poses a
significant safety risk to drivers and occupants of subject
vehicles and the public.
The Plaintiffs jointly purchased a 2017 Ford Mustang EcoBoost
convertible, pre-owned, in 2017 from Carmax.
Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automobile
manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Pastor, Esq.
PASTOR LAW OFFICE LLP
63 Atlantic Avenue, 3d Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 742-9700
Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com
- and -
Ben Barnow, Esq.
Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
205 W. Randolph Street, Suite 1630
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 621-2000
Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
- and -
Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com
FRUIT KING: Faces Ambrosio Suit Over Stock Clerks' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES CAL AMBROSIO, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRUIT KING DELI & GROCERY
CORP. and JAMAL OMER, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05050 (E.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 9, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime
wages, spread of hours pay, liquidated damages, interest and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
Mr. Ambrosio worked as a stock clerk for the Defendants'
supermarket from May 10, 2015, to June 21, 2021.
The Defendants own and operate of a halal supermarket located in
Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Barbara Luberadzka, Esq.
ROBERT WISNIEWSKI P.C.
17 State Street, Suite 820
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 267-2101
GC SERVICES: Cohen Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Carmit Cohen, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons v. GC Services Limited
Partnership, was removed to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on Sept. 20, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:21-cv-61970-XXXX to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
GC Services -- https://www.gcserv.com/ -- is the largest
privately-held outsourcing provider of call center management and
collection agency services in North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Adam Harrison Settle, Esq.
KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK, LLP
Four Penn Center
1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1030
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (484) 841-7107
Email: asettle@kdvlaw.com
GEETA BROWN: Court Enters Amended Scheduling Order in Castillo
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE CASTILLO, et
al., v. GEETA B. BROWN, Case No. 2:20-cv-00243 (D. Maine), the
Hon. Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison entered an order granting
motion to amend scheduling order as follows:
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to designate expert witnesses is
extended to October 15, 2021;
-- Deadline for Defendant to complete depositions of
Plaintiffs' expert witnesses is extended to November 8,
2021;
-- Deadline for Defendant to designate expert witnesses is
extended to November 22, 2021;
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to complete depositions of
Defendant's expert witnesses is extended to December 17,
2021;
-- Deadline to file motion for class certification is
extended to December 27, 2021;
-- Deadline to file response to motion for class
certification is extended to January 26, 2022; and
-- Deadline to file reply memorandum in support of motion for
class certification is extended to February 7, 2022.
The nature of suit states torts -- personal property.[CC]
GEICO: Russo Class Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
BRIAN RUSSO, and similarly situated individuals, v. GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY D/B/A GEICO, Case No. 2:21-cv-17234
(D.N.J., Sept. 20, 2021) seeks to recover overtime and overtime
compensation against GEICO for its violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New Jersey State Wage Payment Law.
Russo brings this lawsuit against GEICO as a collective action on
behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated -- auto
damage adjusters I, II, and II, residential adjusters I, II, and
II, and catastrophic adjusters I, II, and III ("adjusters") who
performed employment duties for the benefit of GEICO and its
customers in GEICO's Region 8 -- who suffered damages as a result
of GEICO's violations of the FLSA pursuant to the collective action
provisions of 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), and as a class action
pursuant to Rule 23.
During the period relevant to this action, September 2018 through
the date of judgment in this action, GEICO carried out an unlawful
payroll policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other si
milarly situated adjusters in GEICO's Region 8 to regularly perform
compensable work duties for the benefit of GEICO and its customers
without providing all non-overtime and overtime compensation as
required by applicable Federal and New Jersey state laws.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq..
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (201) 687-9977
Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
E-mail: Aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
Jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
- and -
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com
GIBSON BRANDS: Ormond Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Trevor Ormond, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Gibson Brands, Inc., Case No.
30202101212948CUBTCX was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on Sept. 21, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-01552 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Gibson Brands, Inc. -- https://www.gibson.com/ -- is an American
manufacturer of guitars, other musical instruments, and
professional audio equipment from Kalamazoo, Michigan, and now
based in Nashville, Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrea E. Bates, Esq.
BATES AND BATES, LLC
1890 Marietta Boulevard
Atlanta, GA 30318
Phone: (404) 288-7439
Fax: (404) 963-6231
Email: Lit@bates-bates.com
HAMILTON, TN: Jarnagin Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANDLE MARIE RILEY v.
HAMILTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT, DEPUTY DANIEL WILKEY, in his capacity
as a deputy sheriff for Hamilton County Government and, in his
individual capacity, DEPUTY JACOB GOFORTH, in his capacity as a
deputy sheriff for Hamilton County Government and, in his
individual capacity, Case No. 1:20-cv-00017-TRM-CHS (E.D. Tenn),
the Plaintiff Maxwell Jarnagin asks the Court to enter an order
certifying a class.
Hamilton County is located in the southeast corner of Tennessee.
A copy of Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 16, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Cavett, Jr., Esq.
CAVETT, ABBOTT & WEISS, PLLC
801 Broad Street, Suite 428
Chattanooga, TN 37402
Telephone: (423) 265-8804
Facsimile: (423) 267-5915
E-mail: John@cawpllc.com
- and -
Rip Biggs, Esq.
WALTER E. (RIP) BIGGS, II
701 Georgia Ave, Suite 401
Chattanooga, TN 37402
Telephone: (423) 265-0720
E-mail: ripbiggs.law@gmail.com
HLD GARI LLC: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Masuda Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
MOTOYA MASUDA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HLD GARI LLC (D/B/A SUSHI OF GARI/UPPER EAST
SIDE), MASATOSHI SUGIO, TAKABUMI HORIKAWA, AYAKO HORIKAWA, MASAHARU
HORIKAWA, MASATAKA HORIKAWA, ROGER TANAKA, YUTAKA TAKEI, and YUMIKO
MATSUMURA A.K.A. YUMI, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-07602
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for
violations of the New York Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and
overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor,
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.
Plaintiff Masuda was employed by the Defendants as a waiter, busboy
and dishwasher at Sushi of Gari/Upper East Side from approximately
2015 until March 31, 2020.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a Japanese restaurant in
New York under the name "Sushi of Gari."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
HOME DEPOT: Appiahs Seek Certification of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA APPIAH, KWADWO
APPIAH v. HOME DEPOT USA, INC.; HOME DEPOT PRODUCT AUTHORITY, LLC,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00489-VLB (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order:
1. certifying this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3);
2. appointing them as the representative of the Class;
3. appointing the Plaintiffs' attorney as interim class
counsel; and
4 for any further relief the Court deems just and proper.
Plaintiff Brenda Appiah seeks the following class certification,
pursuant to Rule 23:
The National Class:
"All persons in the United States who purchased and installed
the subject tiles in-doors where they are likely to be walked
upon under wet conditions."
Plaintiff, Kwadwo Appiah, seeks to the following class
certification:
The Connecticut Class:
"All persons in the State of Connecticut who were injured
when they slipped and fell upon walking on the subject tiles
in-doors under wet conditions."
Excluded from the National and Connecticut subclass is the
Defendant, their subsidiaries and affiliates, as well as all
persons who make a timely election to be excluded from the
class; governmental entities; and the judge to whom this case
is assigned and any immediate family which permits district
courts to wait until 'an early practicable time' before
ruling on a motion to certify as members thereof.
The National Class and Connecticut Subclass are collectively
referred to as "the Class," unless specifically indicated
otherwise.
Certification of Plaintiffs' claims for class-wide treatment
is appropriate because the Plaintiff can prove the elements
of their claims on a class-wide basis using the same evidence
that would be used as evidence in individual actions alleging
the same claims, the suit says.
This case arises from the Defendant's manufacture, marketing, and
sale of defective ceramic floor tiles.
The Plaintiff, Brenda Appiah represents Connecticut citizens who
purchased and installed the defective product as floor tiles in
their homes.
In 2018, Brenda remodeled her residence, located at 46 Francis
Street, East Hartford, Connecticut. The remodeling included
replacing the flooring in the master bathroom and kitchen at her
home. Brenda went to Home Depot in Manchester, Connecticut.
The Defendant is Home Depot Product Authority, LLC., whose parent
company is Home Depot USA, Inc. Defendant's headquarters is located
at 2455 Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta, Georgia.
The subject defective products are glazed ceramic tiles with
geometric patterns. Upon information and belief, Home Depot
manufactures these tiles outside the United States, and they are
designed and produced exclusively for Home Depot. Home Depot's
website indicates that the subject tile was manufactured by LEF
Ceramica. The manufacturer lists the subject tiles as
Barcelona 44x44cm, having dynamic coefficient of friction less than
0.4.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 16,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EQwUfl
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeremiah N. Ollennu, Esq.
ORTHOPAEDIC INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
10 Grand Street, 2 nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06106
Telephone: (860) 200-8839
Facsimile: (860) 218-2158
E-mail: jeremiah.ollennu@ctlawprime
The Defendant is represented by:
Cullen W. Guilmartin, Esq.
GORDON & REES
95 Glastonbury Blvd., Ste. 206
Glastonbury, CT 06033
Via Fax: (860)560-0185
E-mail: cguilmartin@grsm.com
HYRECAR INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of October 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Sept. 14 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired HyreCar Inc. ("HyreCar" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: HYRE) securities between May 14, 2021 and
August 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). HyreCar investors
have until October 26, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
On August 10, 2021, after the market closed, HyreCar announced
financial results for second quarter 2021, reporting net losses of
$9.3 million compared to losses of $3.8 million in the prior year
period. The Company also disclosed that it had incurred higher
costs of revenue "primarily [due to] additional insurance claims of
$2.8 million . . . and incidental payments incurred prior to March
31, 2021 in excess of the reserves and accruals."
On this news, the Company's share price fell 50% to close at $9.85
per share on August 11, 2021, thereby injuring investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) HyreCar had materially understated its insurance
reserves; (2) HyreCar had systematically failed to pay valid
insurance claims incurred prior to the Class Period; (3) HyreCar
had incurred significant expenses transitioning to its new
third-party insurance claims administrator and processing claims
incurred from prior periods; (4) HyreCar had failed to
appropriately price risk in its insurance products and was
experiencing elevated claims incidence as a result; (5) HyreCar had
been forced to dramatically reform its claims underwriting,
policies, and procedures in response to unacceptably high claims
severity and customer complaints; and 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 HyreCar securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than October 26, 2021 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you purchased HyreCar 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]
HYRECAR INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of October 26 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of HyreCar, Inc. (NASDAQ: HYRE) investors
that acquired shares between May 14, 2021 and August 10, 2021.
Investors have until October 26, 2021 to seek an active role in
this litigation.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email.
It is alleged in this lawsuit that HyreCar throughout the Class
Period made misleading and/or false statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) HyreCar's insurance reserves were materially
understated; (2) Prior to the Class Period, HyreCar had
systematically failed to pay valid insurance claims that were
incurred; (3) HyreCar had incurred significant expenses in its
transition to its new third-party insurance claims administrator
and processing claims incurred from prior periods; (4) HyreCar had
failed to price risk in its insurance products appropriately and as
a result was experiencing elevated claims incidence; (5) In
response to unacceptably high claims severity and customer
complaints, HyreCar had been forced to dramatically reform its
claims underwriting, policies and procedures; and (6) HyreCar's
prospects and operations were misrepresented because the company
was not on track to meet its financial estimates provided to
investors during the Class Period, such estimates lacking a
reasonable basis in fact, including HyreCar's purported gross
margin, EBITDA and net loss trajectories, as a result of the
foregoing. The lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages, when
the true details entered the market.
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
26, 2021.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]
ILLINOIS DOC: Kainz Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Heather Kainz, Sara Bailey, Rebecca Buczkowski,
and Sabrina Fox, on Behalf of Themselves and a Class of Similarly
Situated Persons v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (IDOC);
Jeffreys Rob, Leonta Jackson, Kennedy Teri, Emily Ruskin, Renzi
Kelly, Sokol John, Wexford Health Sources Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-03239, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of Illinois on Sept. 8, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-01250-JBM-JEH to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Employment
Discrimination.
The Illinois Department of Corrections --
https://www2.illinois.gov/idoc/Pages/default.aspx -- is a
multicultural agency deeply committed to ensuring diversity,
equity, and inclusion.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robin Potter, Esq.
Maria De Las Nieves Bolanos, Esq.
POTTER BOLANOS, P.C.
111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: 312-861-1800
Email: robin@potterlaw.org
nieves@potterlaw.org
- and -
Patricia Stamler, Esq.
Steve Weiss, Esq.
Elizabeth C. Thompson, Esq.
Matthew Turchyn, Esq.
HERTZ SCHRAM PC
1760 S. Telegraph Rd. Suite 300
Bloomfield Hills, IM 48302
Phone: (248) 335-5000
Email: pstamler@hertzschram.com
sweiss@hertzschram.com
lthomson@hertzschram.com
mturchyn@hertzschram.com
- and -
Martin A. Dolan, Esq.
Karen Munoz, Esq.
DOLAN LAW PC
10 South LaSalle Street #3702
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 676-7600
Email: mdolan@dolanlegal.com
kmunoz@dolanlegal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Erin M. Petrolis, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL
100 West Randolph, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 814-4328
Fax: (312) 814-4425
Email: erin.petrolis@ilag.gov
- and -
Denise Baker-Seal, Esq.
Jessica S. Holliday, Esq.
BROWN & JAMES PC
525 W Main St., Suite 200
Belleville, IL 62220
Phone: (618) 355-5105
Fax: (618) 235-5591
Email: dseal@bjpc.com
jholliday@bjpc.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Goodwin Sues Over Harmful Sunscreen Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Goodwin and Christina T. Geloso, individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC., Case No. 0:21-cv-61890-AHS (S.D. Fla., Sept. 8,
2021), certain sunscreen products manufactured, marketed,
distributed, and sold by JJCI under the brand names "Aveeno" and
"Neutrogena" ("Products") which contain dangerous and unacceptable
levels of benzene, a known human carcinogen.
Each and every one of the Products has been marketed and sold as
"sunscreen" by JJCI through packaging and other advertising
materials. Each and every one of the Products fails to include
labeling indicating that the Products may contain benzene as an
active or inactive ingredient. The presence of benzene has rendered
the Products adulterated, misbranded, and unlawful for sale. JJCI's
conduct with respect to the Products has caused economic damages to
the Plaintiffs and the putative Class. This suit is brought for
injunctive relief; restitution of the full purchase price of the
Products; and such other equitable or monetary relief as allowed by
state and/or federal law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are individual natural persons and are purchasers of
the Products.
The Defendants were engaged in the business of designing,
developing, manufacturing, producing, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, distributing, labeling, and/or selling the
Product.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris Glover, Esq.
David B. Byrne III, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
218 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Phone: (334) 269-2343
Email: chris.glover@beasleyallen.com
david.byrne@beasleyallen.com
- and -
Seth Meyer, Esq.
Alex Dravillas, Esq.
KELLER LENKNER LLC
150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 741-5220
Fax: (312) 971-3502
Email: sam@kellerlenkner.com
ajd@kellerlenkner.com
- and -
Warren Postman, Esq.
KELLER LENKNER LLC
1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 400E
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 918-1123
Fax: (312) 971-3502
Email: wdp@kellerlenkner.com
- and -
Alexandra Walsh, Esq.
WALSH LAW PLLC
1050 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 500
Washington D.C. 20036
Phone: (213) 863-4276
Fax: (202) 780-3678
Email: awalsh@alexwalshlaw.com
- and -
Kimberly Channick, Esq.
WALSH LAW PLLC
13428 Maxella Avenue, #203
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Email: kchannick@alexwalshlaw.com
KANE FOOTWEAR: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kane Footwear LLC.
The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Kane
Footwear LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-05228 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kane Footwear -- https://kanefootwear.com/ -- offers active
recovery footwear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
KASPIEN HOLDINGS: Spack Class Action Fully Resolved
---------------------------------------------------
Kaspien Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2021, that the company paid the
final settlement in the consolidated class action suit entitled,
Spack v. Trans World Entertainment Corp. and the action, has been
fully resolved.
There are two pending class actions.
The first, Spack v. Trans World Entertainment Corp. was originally
filed in the District of New Jersey, April 2017. The Spack Action
alleges that the Company misclassified Store Managers ("SMs") as
exempt nationwide.
It also alleges that Trans World improperly calculated overtime for
Senior Assistant Managers ("SAMs") nationwide, and that both SMs
and SAMs worked "off-the-clock."
It also alleges violations of New Jersey and Pennsylvania State Law
with respect to calculating overtime for SAMs.
The second, Roper v. Trans World Entertainment Corp., was filed in
the Northern District of New York, May 2017.
The Roper Action also asserts a nationwide misclassification claim
on behalf of SMs.
Both actions were consolidated into the Northern District of New
York, with the Spack Action being the lead case.
The Company has reached a settlement with the plaintiffs for both
store manager class actions, which has received approval from the
court.
The Company reserved $0.4 million for the settlement as of January
30, 2021.
During the second quarter of fiscal 2021, the Company paid the
final settlement and the matter is fully resolved as of June 17,
2021.
Kaspien Holdings Inc. provides marketing solutions. The Company
offers digital marketing, review generation, paid social campaigns,
inventory management, supply chain support, brand control, and
creative services. Kaspien Holdings serves customers worldwide.
KASPIEN HOLDINGS: Suit Over Magazine Subscriptions Resolved
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kaspien Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 14, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2021, that the appeal made in the
punitive class action suit related to VIP Backstage Pass
Memberships and/or magazine subscriptions, has been dismissed due
to parties agreement to resolve the matter fully and finally.
On November 14, 2018, three consumers filed a punitive class action
complaint against the Company and Synapse Group, Inc. in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston
Division (Case No.1:18-cv-12377-DPW) concerning enrollment in the
Company's Backstage Pass VIP loyalty program and associated
magazine subscriptions.
The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company's
"negative option marketing" misled consumers into enrolling for
membership and subscriptions without obtaining the consumers'
consent.
The complaint sought to represent a nationwide class of "all
persons in the United States" who were enrolled in and/or charged
for Backstage Pass VIP memberships and/or magazine subscriptions
and to obtain statutory and actual damages on their behalf.
On April 11, 2019, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
lawsuit. On May 8, 2019, two of the plaintiffs from the dismissed
lawsuit filed a similar putative class action in Massachusetts
state court (Civ. Act. No. 197CV00331, Mass. Super. Ct. Hampden
Cty.), based on the same allegations, but this time seeking to
represent only a class of "FYE customers in Massachusetts" who were
charged for VIP Backstage Pass Memberships and/or magazine
subscriptions.
The Company removed that lawsuit back to federal court on June 12,
2019, and then filed a motion to dismiss and/or strike the
plaintiff's class action allegations on June 28, 2019.
On February 2, 2021, the court granted the Company's motion, struck
the class action allegations, and dismissed the individual
plaintiffs' claims for lack of jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs appealed the court's decision on February 24, 2021. The
parties participated in a mandatory court-annexed mediation session
on April 8, 2021.
The parties agreed on terms to resolve the matter fully and
finally, and the appeal was dismissed on May 3, 2021, without
material impact on the financial results of the Company.
Kaspien Holdings Inc. provides marketing solutions. The Company
offers digital marketing, review generation, paid social campaigns,
inventory management, supply chain support, brand control, and
creative services. Kaspien Holdings serves customers worldwide.
KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Katapult Holdings, Inc.
("Katapult" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: KPLT) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Katapult securities between December 18, 2020 and August
10, 2021 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/kplt.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Katapult was experiencing declining e-commerce retail
sales and consumer spending, (2) despite Katapult's assertions that
it was clear and compelling value proposition to both consumers and
merchants, transforming the way nonprime consumers shop for
essential goods and enabling merchant access to this underserved
segment, Katapult lacked visibility into its consumers' future
buying behavior; and (3) 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.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/kplt or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Katapult you have until October 26, 2021, to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 27 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Katapult Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: KPLT,
KPLTW, FSRV, FSRVU, FSRVW) investors that acquired shares between
December 18, 2020 and August 10, 2021. Investors have until October
27, 2021 to seek an active role in this litigation.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.
It is alleged in this complaint that Katapult, throughout the Class
Period made misleading and/or false statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Katapult's e-commerce retail sales and consumer
spending were experiencing a decline; (2) despite assertions from
Katapult that the company was a compelling and clear value
proposition to both merchants and consumers, transforming the way
nonprime consumers shop for essential goods and enabling merchant
access to this underserved segment, Katapult lacked visibility into
their consumers' future buying behavior; and (3) Katapult's
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis, as a result of the foregoing. The lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages, when the true details entered the
market.
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
27, 2021.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]
KILOGEAR INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kilogear Inc. The
case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Kilogear
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05227 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kilogear, Inc. -- https://kilogearcut.com/ -- is a family of
weighted performance products and gear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Glancy Prongay Remind of Oct. 15 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming October 15, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Koninklijke Philips N.V. ("Philips" or the
"Company") (NYSE: PHG) securities between February 25, 2020 and
June 11, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Philips 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/koninklijke-philips-nv/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.
On June 14, 2021, Philips issued a recall notification for certain
devices after finding that the sound abatement foam used in the
devices can degrade and become toxic, potentially causing cancer.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.25, or 3.98%, to
close at $54.25 per share on June 14, 2021, thereby injuring
investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Philips had deficient product manufacturing controls or
procedures; (2) as a result, the Company's Bi-Level PAP and CPAP
devices and mechanical ventilators were manufactured using
hazardous materials; (3) accordingly, the Company's sales revenues
from the foregoing products were unsustainable; (4) the foregoing
also subjected the Company to a substantial risk of a product
recall, in addition to potential legal and/or regulatory action;
and (5) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Philips securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than October 15,
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]
KRAFT HEINZ: Clarke Fraud Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled AARON CLARKE; and MICHELLE DEVERA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-02437, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 10, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-04811 to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Manish S. Shah.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged fraud claims.
The Kraft Heinz Company, commonly known as Kraft Heinz, is an
American food company formed by the merger of Kraft Foods and
Heinz. Co-headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, and Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
LLR INC: Van Suit Wins Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATIE VAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LLR, INC., d/b/a
LuLaRoe, and LULAROE, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-0197-HRH (D. Alaska),
the Hon. Judge H. Russel Holland entered an order:
1. granting plaintiff's motion for class certification of
behalf of:
"All persons who paid "tax" on a purchase of LuLaRoe
products and whose purchase was delivered into a location
in Alaska that does not assess a sales or use tax on the
clothing that LuLaRoe sells."
Excluded from the class are Defendants, their past and
present officers, employees, agents or affiliates; counsel
who have entered an appearance in this action; and any
judge who presides over this action; and
2. appointing Plaintiff's current counsel, Kelly K. Iverson,
of Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP, of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and James J. Davis, Jr. and
Goriune Dudukgian of Northern Justice Project, LLC, of
Anchorage, Alaska, as class counsel.
The court finds that the four requirements of Rule 23(a),
numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
representation, have been met. The court also finds that the
prerequisites for the certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class action
have been established. Questions of law and fact common to members
of the class predominate over the questions affecting individual
members and a class action will be superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy
between plaintiff and the class, on the one hand, and LLR, on the
other hand.
The class claim is that LLR engaged in unfair trade practices by
billing class members residing in jurisdictions which do not impose
a sales tax for a non-existent sales tax as alleged in Count I of
plaintiff's second amended complaint.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39LBSM5 at no extra charge.[CC]
LONGEVERON INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 12 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 14
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Longeveron Inc. (NASDAQ: LGVN): (1)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering documents issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on
or about February 12, 2021 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (2)
between February 12, 2021 and August 12, 2021, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been
filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the
Court no later than November 12, 2021.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Longeveron securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the IPO and/or 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 Longeveron class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2157.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 November 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, the Offering
documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained
untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not
prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing
their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance
policies. Specifically, the Offering documents and defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Lomecel-B, a cell-based therapy product which is derived from
culture-expanded medicinal signaling cells that are sourced from
the bone marrow of young healthy adult donors, was not as effective
in treating aging frailty as defendants had led investors to
believe; (2) accordingly, Lomecel-B's clinical and commercial
prospects with respect to aging frailty were overstated; (3) as a
result of all the foregoing, Longeveron's financial and business
prospects were also overstated; and (4) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Longeveron class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2157.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]
LONGEVERON INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of November 12 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Sept. 14 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Longeveron Inc. ("Longeveron" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: LGVN) 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 12, 2021 (the "IPO"), or between February 12, 2021 and
August 12, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to
contact the firm before November 12, 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. Longeveron's cell-based therapy product,
Lomecel-B, did not demonstrate the effectiveness in treating aging
frailty that it had touted to investors. The Company overstated the
commercial prospects of Lomecel-B. Based on these facts, the
Company's claims were false and materially misleading throughout
the IPO and class period. When the market learned the truth about
Longeveron, 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]
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Fluharty Sues Over Defective Bamboo Flooring
----------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY FLUHARTY and KATHY FLUHARTY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00800-BRW (E.D. Ark., Sept. 9, 2021)
arises from the Defendants' alleged conduct of designing,
manufacturing, producing, marketing, advertising, and selling
defective flooring to Plaintiffs and class members, in violation of
the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the consumer
protection acts of each of the states of the United States, and the
District of Columbia.
According to the complaint, the Defendant markets that its bamboo
flooring under the brand name Morning Star Strand Bamboo Flooring
is durable and meets industry standards, and markets and warrants
that the Product has a 50-year warranty, a warranty that when
ultimately provided well after purchase to the buyer does not in
actuality cover the types of damages alleged herein.
Contrary to the Defendant's advertising and representations, the
Product is allegedly subject to premature cracking, splitting,
warping, and shrinking, all well before the misleading warranted
useful life. The Product's various modes of failure potentially
cause damage to other building components and render the Product
susceptible to premature failure.
The Plaintiffs purchased the Product from their local Lumber
Liquidators store in Little Rock, Arkansas on July 9, 2019.
Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is an American retailer of hard-surface
flooring including hardwood flooring, laminate flooring, vinyl
plank flooring, tile flooring, bamboo flooring and cork flooring,
as well as flooring tools and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Aaron M. Heffington, Esq.
Dylan H. Potts, Esq.
GILL RAGON OWEN, P.A.
425 West Capitol Ave., Suite 3800
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 376-3800
Facsimile: (501) 372-3359
E-mail: potts@gill-law.com
heffington@gill-law.com
- and -
Derek H. Potts, Esq.
THE POTTS LAW FIRM, LLP
425 W. Capitol Avenue, Ste. 3800
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 404-8173
Facsimile: (713) 583-5388
E-mail: dpotts@potts-law.com
MASCHHOFFS LLC: Rene Reyes Sues Over Biometric Scanning & Storage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RENE REYES, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated, v. THE MASCHHOFFS, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-03202-SEM-TSH
(C.D. Ill., Sept. 20, 2021) seeks to obtain statutory damages and
other equitable relief under the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that he and class members are subject to the
unlawful biometric scanning and storage practices of The
Maschhoffs, LLC.
As past and present employees of the Defendant, Plaintiff and class
members were required to provide it with their personalized
biometric indicators and the biometric information derived
therefrom. Specifically, Defendant collects and stores its
employees' fingerprints and requires all the employees to clock-in
and clock-out by scanning their fingerprints into a
fingerprint-scanning machine.
Following the capture of their employees' biometric data, Defendant
uses this data to compare the future scans of their employees'
fingerprints into a punch-clock device. The punch-clock device
scans each fingerprint and confirms that the employee punching in
to work is who they claim to be. The collection of the punch-clock
fingerprint entries is then used to confirm employees' presence,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff and class members have not been notified where their
fingerprints are being stored, for how long Defendant will keep the
fingerprints, and what might happen to this valuable information,
added the suit.
The Plaintiff is an Illinois citizen who was subject to the same
fingerprint-storing practices as other of Defendant's employees.
Maschhoffs LLC a hog production company headquartered in Carlyle,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William H. Beaumont, Esq.
Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209
Chicago, IL 60605
Telephone: (773) 831-8000
E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
whb@beaumontcostales.com
MD NIGERIA: Calicdan Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
SERVANDO PARAON CALICDAN, Plaintiff v. M D NIGERIA, LLC; MEGADRILL
SERVICES LIMITED; ANJALEX INVESTMENTS, LLC; M & D MANAGEMENT, LLC;
MICHAEL A. TOPHAM; WENDY DUNN, DAN TOPHAM, IAN DUNN, JUDY M. DUNN,
and ROBERT P. DUNN, Defendants, Case No. 6:21-cv-03283 (W.D. La.,
Sept. 13, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated workers the required minimum and overtime
wages.
Mr. Calicdan worked for the Defendants from April 2019 until
February 2020 as a welder.
MD Nigeria maintains and repairs sea-going vessels out of a yard it
operates in Cameron Parrish, Louisiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth C. Bordes, Esq.
KENNETH C. BORDES, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
4224 Canal St.
New Orleans, LA 70119
Telephone: (504) 588-2700
Facsimile: (504) 708-1717
E-mail: kcb@kennethbordes.com
- and -
Daniel Werner, Esq.
RADFORD & KEEBAUGH, LLC
315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (678) 271-0300
Facsimile: (678) 271-0304
E-mail: dan@decaturlegal.com
MEL MANAGEMENT: Allen Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
Zetta Allen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MEL MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a MY EYELAB, ENVISION OPTICS,
LLC d/b/a MY EYELAB, MEHBOOB PANJWANI, SAGAR PANJWANI, SHIRAZ
ATTAWALA, and ZAIN ATTAWALA, Case No. 1:21-cv-03741-ELR-WEJ (N.D.
Ga., Sept. 9, 2021) contends that the Defendants unlawfully failed
to pay individuals in the position of "Sales Manager" wages and
overtime compensation pursuant to the requirements of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The complaint alleges that during the course of the Plaintiff's
employment, the Defendants unlawfully failed to pay "Sales
Managers" for overtime compensation for work performed in excess of
40 hours during a workweek. Sales Managers regularly worked more
than 40 hours per workweek but were not properly compensated for
their work in that Sales Managers were not paid an overtime premium
at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the FLSA. The
Plaintiff contends that she is owed unpaid overtime compensation as
a result of the Defendants' unlawful pay practices. The Defendants
willfully misclassified "Sales Managers" as exempt from overtime
pay pursuant to the FLSA despite knowing that House Managers do/did
not fall within any of the FLSA's exemptions to the statutes
overtime pay requirements, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants who was employed
in the position of "Sales Manager."
Defendants operate 14 optometry stores conducting business as "My
Eyelab," providing eye-related services including the selling and
repairing of glasses, sunglasses, and other vision-related
accessories throughout the State of Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roger Orlando, Esq.
THE ORLANDO FIRM, P.C.
315 West Ponce De Leon Ave., Suite 400
Decatur, GA 30030
Phone: (973) 898-0404
Email: roger@orlandofirm.com
- and -
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
Edmund C. Celiesius, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Pl, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Phone: (877) 561-0000
Fax: (855) 582-5279
Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
ed.celiesius@jtblawgroup.com
MEREDITH CORP: Fact Discovery Must be Completed by July 1, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meredith Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, that the court handling the
purported class action suit initiated by purchasers of broadcast
television spot advertising, has set a pretrial schedule requiring
that all fact discovery be completed by July 1, 2022, and briefing
on class certification be completed by November 14, 2022.
On April 3, 2019, a purported class of plaintiff purchasers of
broadcast television spot advertising amended its pending
consolidated complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against a number of broadcast television
station groups to add Meredith and other broadcast television
station groups as defendants.
The amended complaint alleges that the Defendants have violated
federal antitrust law by entering agreements with their competitors
to fix prices and exchange competitively sensitive information.
The Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss on June 5, 2019,
after which the plaintiffs filed a consolidated second amended
complaint on September 9, 2019.
The Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on October 8, 2019. On November 6, 2020, the court denied
the motion to dismiss.
The Court has set a pretrial schedule requiring that all fact
discovery be completed by July 1, 2022, and briefing on class
certification be completed by November 14, 2022.
Meredith Corporation is a diversified media company primarily
focuses on publishing and broadcasting. The Company's publishing
segment includes magazine and book publishing, marketing,
interactive media, licensing, and other related operations.
Meredith operates network-affiliated television stations and
develops syndicated television programs. The company is based in
Des Moines, Iowa.
MERIDIAN TRUST: Faces Baker Suit Over Illegal Sales Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
PETE BAKER, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MERIDIAN TRUST INVESTMENTS, INC., D/B/A
PROPERTYFORCE, Defendant, Case No. CACE-21-017175 (Fla. Cir. Ct.,
Broward Cty., Sept. 12, 2021) arises from the Defendant's violation
of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act by using automated
systems to send outbound telephonic sales calls, including text
messages, to consumers including the Plaintiff, across U.S.,
soliciting consumers to sell homes to Meridian Trust.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful
telephonic sales calls. He additionally seeks damages as authorized
by the FTSA on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class Members, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
actions of Defendant described herein.
Headquartered in Broward County, Florida, Meridian Trust
Investments, Inc. provides real estate services to homeowners and
investors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stefan Coleman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (877) 333-9427
Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com
- and -
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 Northwest 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
MISSION PRODUCE: Settlement Reached in Former Employees' Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mission Produce, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2021, that the plaintiffs in two
California class action lawsuits and the Company agreed
preliminarily to a comprehensive settlement to resolve both class
action cases for a total of $0.8 million.
On April 23, 2020, former Mission Produce, Inc. employees filed a
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles against the company
alleging violation of certain wage and labor laws in California,
including failure to pay all overtime wages, minimum wage
violations, and meal and rest period violations, among others.
Additionally, on June 10, 2020, former Mission Produce, Inc.
employees filed a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Ventura against the company
alleging similar violations of certain wage and labor laws.
The plaintiffs in both cases seek damages primarily consisting of
class certification and payment of wages earned and owed, plus
other consequential and special damages.
While the Company believes that it did not violate any wage or
labor laws, it nevertheless decided to settle these class action
lawsuits.
In May 2021, the plaintiffs in both class action lawsuits and the
Company agreed preliminarily to a comprehensive settlement to
resolve both class action cases for a total of $0.8 million, which
the Company recorded as a loss contingency in selling, general and
administrative expenses in the condensed consolidated statements of
comprehensive income during the three months ended April 30, 2021.
This preliminary settlement is subject to approval by the
applicable courts.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Mission Produce, Inc. is a world leader in sourcing, producing and
distributing fresh avocados, serving retail, wholesale and
foodservice customers. The source, produce, pack and distribute
avocados to its customers and provide value-added services
including ripening, bagging, custom packing and logistical
management. The company is based in Oxnard, California.
MORTON GALLERY: Camacho Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Morton Gallery
LLC. The case is styled as Jason Camacho, for himself and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. The Morton Gallery LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-05215 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Morton Fine Art (MFA) -- https://www.mortonfineart.com/ -- founded
by Amy Morton in 2010 in Washington, DC, is a fine art gallery and
curatorial group that collaborates with art collectors and visual
artists to inspire fresh ways of acquiring contemporary art.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 229-2249
Fax: (212) 229-2246
Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com
MVNBC CORP: Baten Sues Over Delivery Workers' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
NEFTALI BATEN; NICHOLAS ALVAREZ; and RAUL SERRANO, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MVNBC CORP.
(D/B/A BENVENUTO CAFE); PERRY MALLAS; and BILLY MALLAS, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-07571 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2021) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as delivery workers.
MVNBC CORP. owns and operates a cafe, located at New York, NY,
under the name "Benvenuto 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
NEW YORK TIMES: Final Hearing on Moses' Settlement Set for Oct. 13
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIBEL MOSES, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY,
d/b/a/The New York Times, Defendant, Case No. 20-CV-4658 (RA)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Ronnie Abrams of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York will convene a hearing on Oct. 13,
2021, at 3:00 p.m., via videoconference, to consider the final
approval of the class action settlement.
The conference line for argument is (888) 363-4749 and the access
code is 1015508. This line is open to the public. The Court will
contact the parties the day before argument regarding the
videoconferencing technology.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 7, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/xzzfb4cr from Leagle.com.
NR 1 TRANSPORT: Illinois Court Narrows Claims in Dawkins FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEFANEE DAWKINS, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NR 1 TRANSPORT, INC., ZBA, Inc.,
and NERIJUS ZITKEVICIUS, Defendants, Case No. 20 C 4063 (N.D.
Ill.), Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division:
(i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for failure
to state a claim; and
(ii) granted the Plaintiff's motion to certify a conditional
collective action.
After working as a truck driver for Defendants NR 1 and ZBA for
five months, Plaintiff Dawkins asked the companies' owner,
Defendant Nerijus Zitkevicius, to pay her both the wages for her
final week of work and the amounts withheld in an "escrow" account.
Zitkevicius refused. In the action, the Plaintiff alleges
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
Section 201, et seq., and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act ("IWPCA"), 820 ILCS 115/1, et seq. She also asserts state law
claims of conversion and unjust enrichment. Dawkins contends other
drivers were similarly denied pay and thus asks the court to
certify a "collective action" under the FLSA and to authorize
notice to the other drivers of their right to opt in to her FLSA
claim.
Plaintiff Stefanee Dawkins worked as a truck driver for ZBA from
approximately September 2018 to November 2018. ZBA is an Indiana
corporation that operates a truckyard in Joliet, Illinois and is
owned and operated by Defendant Nerijus Zitkevicius. In November
2018, ZBA "purported to terminate Plaintiff's employment," and told
her she would begin driving for Defendant NR 1 instead. NR 1, also
an Indiana corporation, jointly operates the same truckyard with
ZBA and is likewise owned and operated by Zitkevicius.
The Plaintiff and other truck drivers were paid on a per-mile basis
and earned additional flat-rate payments for extra stops and
layovers. The Plaintiff alleges that she regularly worked eighty to
ninety hours per week for ZBA and NR 1, drove a truck owned and
insured by ZBA and NR 1, and reported to the same company
dispatcher in Joliet, Illinois for both jobs. The Defendants'
dispatcher told Plaintiff where and when to drive and scheduled
loads for her to haul to various locations around the country. The
Plaintiff had no discretion over which loads she would haul or
where she would haul them. She alleges in her Amended Complaint
that the Defendants exercised "substantial control over Plaintiff
and other company drivers," but nevertheless improperly classified
the Plaintiff and the other company drivers as independent
contractors.
It was the Defendants' practice to make regular deductions from
truck drivers' weekly paychecks. In addition to weekly deductions
for insurance payments and "office fees," the Defendants regularly
deducted $250 per week, up to $2,000 in total, to be held in
"escrow." ZBA and NR 1 informed the Plaintiff and other drivers, at
the beginning of their employment, that they would receive the
escrow funds within 45 days of termination of their employment.
During the relevant times, Zitkevicius was aware of this deduction
policy and had the authority to put an end to it. In approximately
November 2018, someone stole the truck that the Plaintiff was
driving for the Defendants. Although the Plaintiff had "nothing to
do with the theft," Zitkevicius informed her that NR 1 would be
taking $1,500 from her escrow deposit as a penalty. NR 1 then began
deducting more escrow money from the Plaintiff's paychecks,
deducting an additional $750 in December 2018 and January 2019.
In January 2019, after she suffered an on-the-job injury, the
Plaintiff voluntarily terminated her employment with NR 1. In her
last work week -- Jan. 7, 2019 through Jan. 13, 2019 -- she worked
more than 30 hours. Upon the Plaintiff's termination from NR 1, the
Defendants refused to issue her final weekly paycheck and refused
to return any of her escrow wages. Almost two months later, on
March 8, 2019, the Plaintiff sent Zitkevicius a text message
saying, "Hey Nick this is Stefanee I was wondering when I would
receive my last check and escrow back. I tried calling Karolina but
got no answer. In 2 days I will be gone 2 months."
Zitkevicius ignored the text message and refused to issue the
Plaintiff's final paycheck or reimburse her escrow money, although
he had the authority to do so. The Plaintiff has identified another
terminated driver, Donald Brown, who also personally asked
Zitkevicius multiple times to issue Brown's last paycheck and
reimburse his escrow money and was turned down. According to the
Amended Complaint, it is the Defendants' regular practice to
withhold drivers' escrow funds and final paychecks from employees
upon termination of their employment with NR 1.
On July 10, 2020, Plaintiff Dawkins filed the suit against
Defendants NR 1, ZBA, and Zitkevicius, alleging wage claims under
the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and the IWPCA, 820 ILCS
115/1, et seq., conversion of the Plaintiff's escrow and final
paycheck, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff alleged that she
would be pursuing class certification of a "FLSA Minimum Wage
Class," an "IWPCA Class," and a "Conversion Class."
After the Defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint, the
Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint that is now before the Court.
As noted, a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification are ready for
decision.
Discussion
A. Motion to Dismiss
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff has failed to adequately
plead her FLSA claim against Defendant Zitkevicius and has failed
to adequately plead any of her IWPCA, conversion, or unjust
enrichment claims against either Defendant Zitkevicius or Defendant
NR 1.
1. FLSA claim against Zitkevicius
The Plaintiff Dawkins alleges that Zitkevicius owns and operates NR
1 and supervises the day-to-day operations of the company. She also
alleges that Zitkevicius "had authority to make decisions about
Plaintiff and other drivers' pay, including whether they should
receive their final paycheck." And in the Plaintiff's case, when
Zitkevicius received a text message from Plaintiff complaining that
she had not received her last paycheck or her escrow, Zitkevicius
refused to remedy the situation despite his authority to do so. He
also ignored similar requests from another driver, Donald Brown,
for his own final paycheck and escrow money. The Plaintiff also
alleges more broadly that it was the "Defendants' regular practice
to withhold drivers' escrow funds and to withhold final paychecks
from employees upon termination of their employment with NR 1." The
Plaintiff has alleged that Zitkevicius was the owner of NR 1,
supervised day-to-day activities, had the authority to decide
whether drivers received their final paycheck, had a regular
practice of withholding drivers' final paychecks, and in this case
refused to issue the Plaintiff's last paycheck and escrow despite
his authority to do so and notice that she had not received them.
For purposes of this motion, Judge Pallmeyer is satisfied that
Zitkevicius exercised sufficient control and authority over the
Plaintiff, in ways related to the alleged FLSA violation, so as to
qualify as an employer under the FLSA. Thus, the Judge denies the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the FLSA claim against Zitkevicius.
2. Knowing violation of the IWPCA
The Defendants ask the court to dismiss the IWPCA claim against
Zitkevicius on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to allege that
Zitkevicius had the "knowledge" required to prove an IWPCA claim.
They concede that "any officers of a corporation or agents of an
employer who knowingly permit such employer to violate the
provisions of the IWPCA will be deemed to be the employers of the
employees of the corporation." The Defendants argue, however, that
even if Zitkevicius was aware of the existence of NR 1's policies
that allegedly violated the Plaintiff's FLSA rights, and even if he
had the authority to stop those policies, the allegations in the
complaint do not provide sufficient "factual evidence of
Zitkevicius knowingly violating the Plaintiff's rights under the
IWPCA."
At the motion to dismiss stage, however, Judge Pallmeyer holds, no
factual evidence is required to prove any of the Plaintiff's
claims. To the extent that Zitkevicius is arguing that the
complaint has not sufficiently alleged that he "knowingly
permitted" NR 1 to violate Plaintiff's IWPCA rights, the court
disagrees. The Amended Complaint alleges that Zitkevicius was aware
of NR 1's escrow deduction policy (and had the authority to put an
end to it), knew that the Plaintiff and Donald Brown did not
receive their last paycheck or escrow money, refused to remedy
these problems, and, along with the other Defendants, regularly
withheld drivers' escrow funds and final paychecks. If the
Defendants are arguing that Zitkevicius is not liable because he
did not know that the challenged conduct violated the IWPCA, Judge
Pallmeyer again disagrees.
Because Zitkevicius qualifies as the Plaintiff's employer, the
Plaintiff can seek such relief from Zitkevicius for alleged IWPCA
violations even if Zitkevicius himself did not take action that he
knew to violate the IWPCA. Thus, the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the IWPCA claim against Zitkevicius is denied.
3. FLSA preemption
The Defendants next argue that the Plaintiff's IWPCA, conversion,
and unjust enrichment claims are preempted by the FLSA.
Judge Pallmeyer holds that the Defendants are wrong, however, in
suggesting that this principle defeats all of the Plaintiff's state
claims. The Judge says, the FLSA preempts state common law claims,
but specifically preserves wage claims based on state statutory
law. Courts have consistently found that state common-law claims
are preempted to the extent that they seek remedies for rights
protected by the FLSA. The FLSA does not preempt the Plaintiff's
IWPCA claim. The Defendants cite no case law holding that the FLSA
preempts common law claims for wages not recoverable under the
FLSA. Judge Pallmeyer presumes that the Plaintiff's claims relating
to the escrow deductions and her final paycheck seek wages at a
contracted rate that exceeds the minimum wage guaranteed by the
FLSA. Under that presumption (which may, of course, be rebutted at
a later stage), the Judge concludes those claims are not preempted
and declines to dismiss them on this basis.
4. Conversion
The Defendants have challenged the Plaintiff's common law claims on
other bases as well. The conversion claim fails, they urge, because
under Illinois law, "an action for the conversion of funds may not
be maintained to satisfy a mere obligation to pay money." The
Defendants contend that the Plaintiff's conversion claim must be
dismissed because it is aimed at an indeterminate sum rather than
funds that are capable of being described, identified, or
segregated in a specific manner.
Judge Pallmeyer finds that the Plaintiff referred to her final
paycheck as "a currently unknown amount of money," but she also
alleges that this amount could be easily "ascertained by reviewing
the Defendants' records showing how many miles the Plaintiff drove
in her final workweek." These allegations are sufficient under
Illinois law. The amount of the Plaintiff's final paycheck will be
easily ascertainable upon discovery of the number of miles the
Plaintiff drove in her final week. The Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for conversion is denied.
5. Unjust Enrichment
Finally, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's unjust
enrichment claim cannot be asserted as a stand-alone claim and must
instead rise and fall with the fates of the Plaintiff's other
claims.
On this point, Judge Pallmeyer agrees. She finds that the
Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim is tied to the fate of her
statutory claims and her conversion claim. It does not provide an
independent basis for recovery and is therefore dismissed without
prejudice.
Summary
In light of the foregoing, Judge Pallmeyer granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss with respect to the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment
claim, and otherwise denied.
B. Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification
Next, Judge Pallmeyer addresses the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification of her FLSA claim as a collective action
under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). In the event that an employer fails
to pay minimum wage to its employees, the FLSA allows a single
employee to bring a "collective action" on behalf of herself and
"other employees similarly situated."
In Bigger v. Facebook, Inc., 947 F.3d 1043, 1046 & n.1 (7th Cir.
2020), the Seventh Circuit noted -- without indicating approval or
disapproval -- the use by some courts of "a two-stage procedure for
determining whether individuals are 'similarly situated' to the
named plaintiff(s)." This two-step process allows courts to
determine whether potential members of the collective action are
"similarly situated" to plaintiff for purposes of Section 216(b).
Under the first step, "the court applies a lenient standard,
requiring the putative lead plaintiff to make a 'minimal showing'
that other employees are similarly situated." Under the second
step, "following the completion of the opt-in process and further
discovery, the defendant may ask the court to 'reevaluate the
conditional certification to determine whether there is sufficient
similarity between the named and opt-in plaintiffs to allow the
matter to proceed to trial on a collective basis.'"
At this point, Judge Pallmeyer engages in a more stringent
"fact-intensive inquiry" to determine "the veracity of the
allegations that all putative claimants are similarly situated." If
she determines that putative claimants are not sufficiently
similarly situated, she may revoke the conditional certification.
1. A "modest factual showing" of similarity
For now, Judge Pallmeyer looks only at the first step of the
inquiry and concludes that the Plaintiff has made the necessary
factual showing. She opines that the possibility that a
fact-intensive inquiry may be necessary later on does not preclude
conditional certification at stage one. Under the lenient standard
that courts apply at step one of the FLSA collective action
process, the Judge has little difficulty concluding that the
Plaintiff's request should be granted. If the opt-in process and
discovery reveal that putative plaintiffs are not sufficiently
similarly situated to warrant collective action certification under
Section 216(b), the Judge holds that the Defendants will be free to
ask the Court to decertify the class at that point.
2. The proposed notice
The Plaintiff has attached a proposed notice form to her motion for
conditional certification. The Defendants raise two objections to
the language of the proposed notice. First, they contend that the
Plaintiff seeks to send the proffered notice to every individual
who has worked as a company driver for either NR 1 or for
Zitkevicius between June 20, 2017 and the present. The Defendants
ask that the notice reflect that this suit applies only to company
drivers who drove for NR 1.
Judge Pallmeyer says it is not clear which portion of the proposed
notice the Defendants are referring to, but Zitkevicius is
mentioned in the proffered notice only insofar as it identifies
both NR 1 and Zitkevicius as Defendants. The notice itself is
titled "IMPORTANT NOTICE OF LAWSUIT TO ALL COMPANY TRUCK DRIVERS
WHO WORKED FOR NR 1 TRANSPORT FROM JULY 10, 2017 TO THE PRESENT AND
WHO DID NOT RECEIVE PAYMENT FOR THEIR FINAL WEEK OF WORK." The
Defendants' first objection is overruled.
Second, the Defendants object to language in the proffered notice
which states, "If you decide not to join this case, then you will
not be affected by any judgment or settlement of Plaintiff's legal
claims under the FLSA. You also may not be allowed to recover money
damages, if any are awarded on these claims." They complain that
this language provides an improper incentive for drivers to opt
into the class on a promise of monetary recovery.
Judge Pallmeyer disagrees. She says, the statement in question
merely reflects potential claimants' rights and allows them to make
an informed decision about whether to opt into the present lawsuit.
The Defendant has not identified any way in which the language at
issue is inaccurate or misleading.
Judge Pallmeyer conditionally certifies the Plaintiff's FLSA
minimum wage claim as a collective action under Section 216(b). In
doing so, the Judge authorizes the Plaintiff to mail the notice
attached to her motion to individuals who worked as "company
drivers" at NR 1 between June 10, 2017 and the present day, who
received no pay for the last week of work that they performed.
Within 14 days of the ruling, the Judge directs the Defendants to
produce, in a computer-readable format, the names, last-known
addresses, and e-mail addresses of all individuals who worked as
"company drivers" at NR 1 between June 10, 2017 and the present
day. Finally, the Judge will allow the putative plaintiffs to opt
into the lawsuit until two months after the date the notice is
mailed.
Conclusion
Judge Pallmayer granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss. The Judge granted the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional FLSA collective action certification. The Defendants
are directed to produce a list of putative plaintiffs and their
contact information, in computer-readable format, within 14 days of
the ruling. The parties are directed to submit a joint written
status report on Oct. 27, 2021.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 8, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/425p2c77 from
Leagle.com.
OMNIPONT MANAGEMENT: Bid to Extend Class Cert. Filing Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hawthrone v. Omnipont
Management Solutions, LLC, et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-06082 (W.D.
Ark.), the Hon. Judge Robert T. Dawson entered an order granting in
part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion to extend time to
file class certification and, alternatively, to file first amended
complaint.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit.
Omnipoint Management is a professional company that helps people
who have wandered toward a financial crisis.[CC]
ORACLE CORP: Stockholder Putative Class Suit Underway in California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oracle Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit initiated by an alleged
stockholder of the company.
On August 10, 2018, a putative class action, brought by an alleged
stockholder of Oracle, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the company, its Chief
Technology Officer, its then-two Chief Executive Officers, two
other Oracle executives, and one former Oracle executive.
As noted above, Mr. Mark Hurd, one of the company's then-two Chief
Executive Officers, passed away on October 18, 2019.
On March 8, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff
alleges that the defendants made or are responsible for false and
misleading statements regarding Oracle's cloud business.
Plaintiff further alleges that the former Oracle executive engaged
in insider trading. Plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may
proceed as a class action, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, and unspecified declaratory/injunctive relief.
On April 19, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended
complaint. On December 17, 2019, the court granted this motion,
giving plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended complaint,
which plaintiff filed on February 17, 2020.
On April 23, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and the
court held a hearing on this motion on September 24, 2020.
On March 22, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part
this motion. The court dismissed the action as to one Oracle
executive and the former Oracle executive. The court permitted
plaintiff to proceed with only a narrow omissions theory against
the remaining defendants.
On April 21, 2021, defendants filed an answer to the complaint.
Trial is scheduled to commence on November 6, 2023.
Oracle said, "We believe that we have meritorious defenses against
this action, and we will continue to vigorously defend it."
Oracle Corporation develops, manufactures, markets, sells, hosts,
and supports application, platform, and infrastructure solutions
for information technology (IT) environments worldwide. The company
provides services in three layers of the cloud: Software as a
Service, Platform as a Service, and Infrastructure as a Service.
The company was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Redwood
City, California.
PARSLEY ENERGY: Streety Seeks to Send Notice to Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JIM STREETY, Individually
and For Others Similarly Situated, v. PARSLEY ENERGY OPERATIONS,
LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-00049-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), Mr. Streety seeks
authorization from the Court to immediately send notice to the
following class of:
"current and former workers: "Field Superintendents, HSE
Consultants, Wellsite Managers (including Drilling and
Completions), and Mud Engineers working on behalf of
Parsley Energy who were classified as independent contractors
and paid a day-rate with no overtime at any time from January
27, 2018 to the present (the "Putative Class Members")."
Parsley classified all Class Members as independent contractors and
paid them a day rate. Streety's proposed class is similarly
situated because they are victims of the same uniform, illegal, and
common pay practice imposed on them by Parsley and its agents.
Parsley is an independent oil and natural gas company focused on
the acquisition, development, exploration, and production of
unconventional oil and natural gas properties in the Permian
Basin.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 16
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2W0ctL6
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
PATTERSON COMPANIES: MOA Entered in Patterson Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2021, that the company has
signed a memorandum of understanding to settle the case captioned
Plymouth County Retirement System v. Patterson Companies, Inc.,
Scott P. Anderson and Ann B. Gugino, Case No. 0:18-cv-00871
MJD/SER.
On March 28, 2018, Plymouth County Retirement System filed a
federal securities class action complaint against Patterson
Companies, Inc. and its former CEO Scott P. Anderson and former CFO
Ann B. Gugino in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota in a case captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v.
Patterson Companies, Inc., Scott P. Anderson and Ann B. Gugino,
Case No. 0:18-cv-00871 MJD/SER.
On November 9, 2018, the complaint was amended to add former CEO
James W. Wiltz and former CFO R. Stephen Armstrong as individual
defendants. Under the amended complaint, on behalf of all persons
or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Patterson's common
stock between June 26, 2013 and February 28, 2018, Plymouth alleges
that Patterson violated federal securities laws by failing to
disclose that Patterson's revenue and earnings were "artificially
inflated by Defendants' illicit, anti-competitive scheme with its
purported competitors, Benco and Schein, to prevent the formation
of buying groups that would allow its customers who were
office-based practitioners to take advantage of pricing
arrangements identical or comparable to those enjoyed by
large-group customers."
In its class action complaint, Plymouth asserts one count against
Patterson for violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and a second,
related count against the individual defendants for violating
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Plymouth seeks compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest and reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' witness fees
and costs.
On August 30, 2018, Gwinnett County Public Employees Retirement
System and Plymouth County Retirement System, Pembroke Pines
Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers, Central Laborers
Pension Fund were appointed lead plaintiffs.
On January 18, 2019, Patterson and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 25, 2019, the
U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation that the
motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. The report
and recommendation, among other things, recommended the dismissal
of all claims against individual defendants Ann B. Gugino, R.
Stephen Armstrong and James W. Wiltz.
On September 10, 2019, the District Court adopted the Magistrate
Judge's report and recommendation. On September 28, 2020, the
District Court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the class,
appoint class representatives and appoint class counsel.
On October 12, 2020, Patterson and the remaining individual
defendant, Mr. Anderson, filed a Rule 23(f) petition for
interlocutory appeal of the class certification order with the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in which the defendants sought
clarification of the standard for rebutting the Basic presumption
of class-wide reliance in securities class actions.
On October 13, 2020, Patterson and Mr. Anderson filed a motion to
stay the underlying proceeding with the District Court pending the
possibility of interlocutory appeal. On November 9, 2020, the
District Court denied defendants' motion to stay and on November
12, 2020, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied defendants'
Rule 23(f) petition.
On May 17, 2021, Patterson and Mr. Anderson filed a motion for
summary judgment and a motion to exclude plaintiff's expert.
On August 27, 2021, the company signed a memorandum of
understanding to settle this case.
Under the terms of the settlement, Patterson will pay $63,000 to
resolve the case.
Patterson said, "Although we have agreed to settle this matter, we
expressly deny the allegations of the complaint and all liability.
Our insurers have consented to the settlement and are expected to
contribute an aggregate of $35,000 to fund the settlement and to
reimburse us for certain costs and expenses of the litigation. As a
result of the foregoing, we recorded a pre-tax reserve of $63,000
in other accrued liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance
sheets in our Corporate segment during the first quarter of fiscal
2022 related to the probable settlement of this litigation. During
the first quarter of fiscal 2022, we also recorded a receivable of
$27,000 in prepaid expenses and other current assets in the
condensed consolidated balance sheets in our Corporate segment
related to probable insurance recoveries, which amount we have
negotiated to be paid into the litigation settlement escrow as
required by the memorandum of understanding. The net expense of
$36,000 was recorded in operating expenses in our condensed
consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive
income. We expect to record a gain of $8,000 during the second
quarter of fiscal 2022 in our Corporate segment to account for
expected carrier reimbursement of previously expended fees and
costs, which reimbursement we expect to receive during the second
quarter of fiscal 2022. The settlement is subject to court approval
of a stipulation of settlement to be drafted by the parties."
Patterson Companies Inc. distributes dental products, veterinary
supplies for companion pets, and rehabilitation supplies. The
Company sells and markets to dental clinics and laboratories,
veterinarians, and to the physical and occupational therapy
markets. The company is based in St. Paul, Minnesota.
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Fishon Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIC FISHON and ALICIA
PEARLMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-11711-LJL
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
1. granting their motion for class certification;
2. certifying the proposed Classes;
the "New York Class".
"All purchasers of the Peloton hardware and/or the
corresponding Peloton Membership subscription from April
9, 2018 through March 25, 2019 in the State of New York
the "Michigan Class"
"All purchasers of the Peloton hardware and/or the
corresponding Peloton Membership subscription from April
9, 2018 through March 25, 2019 in the State of Michigan;"
3. appointing Mr. Fishon and Ms. Pearlman as Class
Representatives; and
4. appointing their counsel as Class Counsel.
For years, Peloton distinguished its stationary bike and treadmill
from its competitors' offerings by touting its "ever-growing" and
"growing" library of live and on-demand classes.
In its quest to create content that was more appealing than its
competitors' content, Peloton set those classes to music that it
had not obtained the rights to use. Despite full knowledge that the
size of its vaunted class library was built on a house of cards of
unlicensed music, Peloton nevertheless continued to promote its
library as "ever-growing" and "growing" while never informing the
public that what was truly growing was the slate of
cease-and-desist letters and threats of copyright infringement
litigation that made the inevitable culling of its library
impossible to ignore.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 16,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XNN1td
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin J. Whiting, Esq.
Ashley C. Keller, Esq.
Alex J. Dravillas, Esq.
KELLER LENKNER LLC
150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-5222
E-mail: ben.whiting@kellerlenkner.com
ack@kellerlenkner.com
ajd@kellerlenkner.com
- and -
Greg G. Gutzler, Esq.
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Adam Prom, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
444 Madison Avenue, Fourth Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (646) 933-1000
E-mail: ggutzler@dicellolevitt.com
alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
aprom@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Aaron M. Zigler, Esq.
ZIGLER LAW GROUP, LLC
308 South Jefferson Street, Suite 333
Chicago, IL 60661
Telephone: (312) 673-8427
E-mail: aaron@ziglerlawgroup.com
PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING: Misclassifies Distributors, Poletti Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
TERENCE J. POLETTI, LEONARD COSTA, CHRISTOPHER J. CHAPMAN, STEVEN
NIEVES, JOSEPH DISTASI, ARTHUR COMBS, and MICHAEL ASHTON, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., REGINALD GOINS,
WILLIAM W. WILSON, HAROLD HONICKMAN, JEFFREY HONICKMAN, JOSEPH
KLINGLER, SCOTT ALLMERS, and JOSEPH HAYES, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-07603 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2021) seeks redress for
Defendants' intentional and longstanding misclassification of
Plaintiffs as "independent contractors," rather than "employees,"
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor
Law and the New York Franchise Act.
The complaint contends that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs
and class members proper minimum and overtime wages, made unlawful
deductions from wages, failed to pay maintenance of required
uniforms, failed to provide wages and benefits, failed to reimburse
the costs and expenses for purchasing and maintaining equipment and
"tools of the trade" required to perform jobs, failed to provide
notices/wage statements, failed to pay spread of hours, and failed
to provide complete and accurate payroll records.
Additionally, the Defendants have never filed an offering
prospectus with the department of law in New York State, nor did
they ever file a registration on forms prescribed by the
department, nor did they provide Plaintiffs and members of the
Class with any of the detailed disclosures and accompanying
documents required by the Franchise Act, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs are current or former distributors of Pepsi-Cola
non-alcoholic beverage products to various large and small retail
and corporate accounts within the five boroughs of the City of New
York.
Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc. supplies and
distributes non-alcoholic soft drinks and non-carbonated beverages
to the five boroughs of New York City, Westchester County, and
Nassau and Suffolk Counties. PCBCNY's products include well-known
beverage lines including, but not limited to, Pepsi, Gatorade,
Starbucks, Evian, Mountain Dew, Lipton, Aquafina, Pure Leaf Tea,
and many others.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Patricia R. Lynch, Esq.
Clifford Tucker, Esq.
Luigi Brandimarte, Esq.
SACCO & FILLAS, LLP
31-19 Newtown Ave., 7th Fl.
Astoria, NY 11102
Telephone: (718) 746-3440
PIZZA HUT: Patton FTSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAVAE PATTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PIZZA HUT, LLC, Case No.
2021-018755-CA-01, was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
September 17, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-23357 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act by sending telephonic sales
calls to the Plaintiff and Class members without having secured
prior express written consent.
Pizza Hut, LLC is an American multinational restaurant chain and
international franchise, with its principal place of business in
Plano, Texas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Cory W. Eichhorn, Esq.
Brandon T. White, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
701 Brickell Avenue Suite 3300
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 374-8500
E-mail: Cory.eichhorn@hklaw.com
Brandon.white@hklaw.com
PLANET BEAUTY: Mason Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
PORTIA MASON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PLANET BEAUTY, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
8:21-cv-01501 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 10, 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 and the California’s Unruh
Civil Rights Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its
Website, https://www.planetbeauty.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.
Planet Beauty Inc. operates as a fashion retail boutique. The
Company offers skincare, makeup, haircare, tools, nails, men, bath
and body, as well as gift products. Planet Beauty serves customers
in the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
Binyamin Manoucheri, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com
QAD INC: Preliminary Injunction Hearing in NCP Suit Set for Oct. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------
QAD Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 9, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2021, that hearing on plaintiff's request for a
preliminary injunction in Nantahala Capital Partners II Limited
Partnership v. QAD Inc., et al., Case No. 2021-0573-PAF, is
scheduled for October 1, 2021.
On June 28, 2021, QAD entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the "Merger Agreement") to be acquired by Thoma Bravo (TB), a
leading private equity investment firm focused on the software and
technology-enabled services sector, in an all-cash transaction with
an equity value of approximately $2 billion.
Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, and subject to
satisfaction of the conditions set forth therein, QAD shareholders
will receive $87.50 per share of Class A Common Stock or Class B
Common Stock. Assuming completion of the transaction, QAD will
become a private company.
On July 2, 2021, Nantahala Capital Partners II Limited Partnership
commenced a putative class action against members of the Company's
Special Committee, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Pamela
Lopker, Thoma Bravo, Project Quick Parent, LLC and Project Quick
Merger Sub Inc., in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
captioned Nantahala Capital Partners II Limited Partnership v. QAD
Inc., et al., Case No. 2021-0573-PAF.
The complaint claims that the Contribution and Exchange Agreement
(pursuant to which and immediately prior to the time at which the
Merger becomes effective, Pamela Lopker and certain entities
affiliated with Ms. Lopker will contribute a percentage of shares
in exchange for units in the post-close Company) and the Merger
Agreement violate Article IV, Section 2.B(d) of QAD's corporate
charter, which provides that holders of Class A Common Stock
receive per Share consideration no less favorable than that
received by any holders of Class B Common Stock in any merger.
The complaint seeks (1) a declaration that Ms. Lopker and the
individual director defendants breached QAD's corporate charter and
violated their fiduciary duties as well as declaring that Thoma
Bravo aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duty;
(2) rescission and monetary damages in an amount to be determined
at trial; (3) injunctive relief enjoining the closing of the
Merger; and (4) an award of costs incurred by plaintiff in bringing
the lawsuit, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.
On July 16, 2021, the Court granted plaintiff's motion to expedite
proceedings and a hearing on plaintiff's request for a preliminary
injunction is scheduled for October 1, 2021.
On August 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a supplement to their complaint
alleging that the Director Defendants and Ms. Lopker breached their
fiduciary duties by disseminating a false, misleading, and
materially incomplete Proxy, and that Thoma Bravo aided and abetted
those breaches.
Specifically, Plaintiff claims that the Proxy, issued on August 2,
2021, provides an inaccurate description of the events leading to
the Merger and the consideration that Ms. Lopker will receive in
the Merger. The Company believes the claims are without merit.
QAD said. "At this stage, it is not possible to predict the outcome
of the proceedings in this Merger-related litigation or its impact
on the Company or the Merger."
Headquartered in Santa Barbara, Calif., QAD Inc. is a global
provider of enterprise software applications, professional services
and application support for manufacturing companies. QAD software
is used at approximately 6,000 sites by manufacturing companies
that operate mainly in six industries: automotive, consumer
products, food and beverage, high technology, industrial products
and life sciences.
RICHARD L. YELLEN: Fierro Sues Over N.Y. Judiciary Law Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
PATSY FIERRO and DENISE ZUCARO as Administrator of the Estate of
LUIGI ZUCARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. RICHARD L. YELLEN, ESQ., BRENDAN C. KOMBOL,
ESQ., RICHARD L. YELLEN & ASSOCIATES, LLP, MONICA E. KIPINIAK,
ESQ., J.C. RYAN EBCO/H&G LLC and DANA F. SCHNIPPER, Defendants,
Case No. 523796/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., September 20,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of New
York State Judiciary Law Section 487 and conspiracy to violate that
law.
The Plaintiffs have repeatedly asserted the fraudulent and
dishonest acts of the Defendants in obtaining and, thereafter,
attempting to wrongfully collect upon a fraudulently obtained
Default Judgment which was issued against the Plaintiffs in
connection with the purported class action suit that was brought
under Article 3-A of the New York Lien Law. The lawsuit started
with the disagreements between the Plaintiffs, the principals of
Cyber-Struct, Inc., and Dean Boerum Owners, Inc. (DBO) concerning a
three-story building project in New York. The Defendants
represented DBO as its counsel in the dispute.
Richard L. Yellen & Associates, LLP is a law firm based in New York
County, New York.
J.C. Ryan EBCO/H&G LLC is a contractor with a principal place of
business in Nassau County, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Douglas J. Pick, Esq.
PICK & ZABICKI, LLP
369 Lexington Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 695-6000
SANDERSON FARMS: Law Firm Investigates Securities Act's Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Graber, writing for WATTPoultry.com, reports that Monteverde &
Associates wants to know if Sanderson Farms and its board violated
securities laws or breached their fiduciary duties to the company.
The proposed sale of Sanderson Farms is being investigated by
Monteverde & Associates, a national class action securities
litigation law firm. [GN]
SELECTQUOTE INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of October 15 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming October 15, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired SelectQuote, Inc. ("SelectQuote" or "the
Company") (NYSE: SLQT) securities between February 8, 2021 and May
11, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your SelectQuote 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/selectquote-inc/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On May 11, 2021, SelectQuote held a conference call in connection
with its third quarter 2021 financial results during which it
disclosed that its fourth quarter results would be impacted by a
"negative cohort and tail adjustment" due to "lower second-term
persistency for the 2019 cohort."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $5.50, or 20%, to
close at $21.90 per share on May 12, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants made material
misrepresentations concerning the following: (1) that SelectQuote's
2019 cohort was underperforming; (2) that, as a result, the
Company's financial results would be adversely impacted; and (3)
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 SelectQuote securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than
October 15, 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]
SMITHFIELD FOODS: Smith, et al. Seek Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA SMITH, et al., on
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. SMITHFIELD
FOODS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00194-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va.), the
Plaintiffs Jessica Smith, David Kolb, and Christian Golightly ask
the Court pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifiying the case as a collective action;
and
2. implementing a procedure whereby prospective opt-in
plaintiffs will be notified of Plaintiff's FLSA claims and
given an opportunity to join this action as party
plaintiffs.
Smithfield is a pork producer and food-processing company based in
Smithfield, Virginia, in the United States, and a wholly owned
subsidiary of WH Group of China.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 16
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EGHHZq
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James R. Theuer, Esq.
JAMES R. THEUER, PLLC
555 E. Main Street, Ste. 1212
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: (757) 446-8047
Facsimile: (757) 446-8048
E-mail: jim@theuerlaw.com
- and -
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
SPROUT FOODS: Key Suit Moved From N.D. California to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREA KEY, et al., Plaintiffs v. SPROUT FOODS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-02391-VC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince
Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California granted Sprout Foods' motion to transfer to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey and denied its motion
to dismiss without prejudice to refiling it in the transferee
court.
The Plaintiffs are residents of California who bought Sprout Foods
baby food that was allegedly tainted by toxic heavy metals. They
seek to bring California state-law claims against Sprout Foods on
behalf of a California class. But Sprout Foods and many of the
non-parties it identifies as having information relating to the
lawsuit are located in and around the State of New Jersey. And a
proposed nationwide class action is pending against Sprout Foods in
the District of New Jersey. So Sprout Foods has sought to transfer
the case to that district, where it could have been filed
initially, "for the convenience of parties and witnesses" and "in
the interest of justice."
Because the Plaintiffs in the case filed their lawsuit before the
New Jersey plaintiffs, Judge Chhabria holds that the first-to-file
rule does not apply. He says, although it is a close question, the
section 1404(a) factors favor a transfer of venue. The potential
consolidation with the pending action in New Jersey would reduce
litigation costs and result in a more efficient discovery process.
Judge Chhabria adds that convenience to the parties and non-party
witnesses is less important in a world where technology makes it
easy to conduct discovery from anywhere, few cases go to trial, and
technology makes remote trial testimony more feasible. But still,
to the extent a trial is necessary, litigating in New Jersey is
more convenient for Sprout Foods and, more importantly, for the
non-party witnesses Sprout Foods represents as having relevant
information about the case.
The Judge says, those efficiency gains outweigh the inconvenience
to the Plaintiffs and the likelihood that the case will take longer
to litigate in New Jersey than it would here. The Plaintiffs'
choice of forum is entitled to some weight because they seek to
represent a California class that was allegedly harmed within
California. But the real locus of the case is in New Jersey, where
Sprout Foods' manufacturing and marketing decisions were made.
Judge Chhabria says that it is also noteworthy that the counsel for
Sprout Foods has stated on the record that, if the case is
transferred to New Jersey and consolidated with the proposed
nationwide class action, the company will not object to class
certification on the ground that multistate subclasses are
unmanageable or otherwise inappropriate. The other factors, such as
local interest in the action and familiarity of the forum with the
applicable law, are neutral.
Accordingly, Sprout Foods' motion to transfer to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey is granted. The motion to
dismiss is denied without prejudice to refiling it in the
transferee court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 7, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/twa4xzc4 from Leagle.com.
STAMPS.COM INC: Sabatini Sues Over Sale to Thoma Bravo
-------------------------------------------------------
ERIC SABATINI, Plaintiff v. STAMPS.COM INC., G. BRADFORD JONES,
KATE ANN MAY, MOHAN P. ANANDA, DAVID C. HABIGER, KENNETH T.
MCBRIDE, and THEODORE R. SAMUELS, II, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-07341 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 14, 2021) is an action brought by
the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, against Stamps.com Inc. and the members of Stamps.com's
Board of Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
14a-9, and to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant
to which Stamps.com will be acquired by Thoma Bravo, L.P. through
Thoma Bravo's affiliates, Stream Parent, LLC and Stream Merger Sub,
Inc.
According to the complaint, on August 30, 2021, Stamps.com filed a
Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement with the SEC. The Proxy
Statement, which recommends that Stamps.com stockholders vote in
favor of the proposed transaction, allegedly omits or misrepresents
material information concerning, among other things: (i) the
financial projections for Stamps.com and the data and inputs
underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the
fairness opinion provided by the Company's financial advisor, J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC; (ii) the background of the proposed
transaction; and (iii) J.P. Morgan's potential conflicts of
interest. The Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and
misleading Proxy Statement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, asserts the complaint.
In short, unless remedied, Stamps.com's public stockholders will be
irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a
sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the proposed
transaction, says the complaint. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks to
enjoin the stockholder vote on the proposed transaction unless and
until such Exchange Act violations are cured.
Mr. Sabatini is, and has been at all times relevant hereto, a
continuous stockholder of Stamps.com.
Based in El Segundo, California, Stamps.com is a provider of
e-commerce shipping solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
9100 Wilshire Blvd. #725 E.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
- and -
Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 682-3025
Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law
firm, continues its investigation on behalf of Talis Biomedical
Corporation ("Talis" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TLIS) investors
concerning the Company and its officers' possible violations of the
federal securities laws.
If you suffered a loss on your Talis 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/talis-biomedical-corporation/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On August 10, 2021, Talis reported its second quarter 2021
financial results. During the related conference call, the Company
revealed that its "development timelines have been extended by
delays in the launching of [Talis'] COVID-19 test and manufacturing
scale."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.58, or 6%, to close
at $8.39 per share on August 11, 2021, thereby injuring investors.
Then, on August 30, 2021, after the market closed, Talis announced
that its Chief Executive Officer, Brian Coe, had "stepped down."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.00, or 11%, to
close at $8.06 per share on August 31, 2021, thereby injuring
investors further.
Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding
Talis should consider their options to aid the investigation or
take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150
or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com.
About GPM
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing
investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex
class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has
consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018,
GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class
action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of
settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40
attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of
dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust,
consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled
cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including
cases involving financial restatements, internal control
weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and
forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading,
violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ
investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's
attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all
industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy,
consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs,
financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech,
cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past
successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry
publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times,
Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's,
Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]
TILLY'S INC: Settlement Talks in Gonzales Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2021, that the parties in Juan
Carlos Gonzales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. Tilly's Inc. et al, Superior Court of California,
County of Orange, Case No. 30-2017-00948710-CU-OE-CXC, have agreed
to continue their settlement talks.
In October 2017, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
against the company, alleging various violations of California's
wage and hour laws.
The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified damages,
unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs.
In December 2017, the company filed an answer to the complaint,
denying all of the claims and asserting various defenses.
In April 2018, the plaintiff filed a separate action under the
Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") against us seeking penalties
on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees for the
same alleged violations of California's wage and hour laws.
The company requested the plaintiff to dismiss the class action
claims based on an existing class action waiver in an arbitration
agreement which plaintiff signed with the company's co-defendant,
BaronHR, the staffing company that employed plaintiff to work at
the Company. In June 2018, the plaintiff's class action complaint
was dismissed.
The parties mediated the PAGA case with a well-respected mediator
in March 2020.
Although the case did not settle at the mediation, the parties have
agreed to continue their settlement discussions with the assistance
of the mediator.
The court has not yet issued a trial date.
By agreement between co-defendant BaronHR and Tilly's, BaronHR is
required to indemnify the company for all of its losses and
expenses incurred in connection with this matter.
Tilly's said, "We have defended this case vigorously, and will
continue to do so. We believe that a loss is currently not probable
or estimable under ASC 450, "Contingencies," and no accrual has
been made with regard to the verdict."
Tilly's, Inc. retails casual apparel, footwear, and accessories for
young men and women, and boys and girls in the United States. Its
apparel merchandise includes tops, outerwear, bottoms, and dresses;
and accessories merchandise comprises backpacks, hats, sunglasses,
headphones, handbags, watches, jewelry, and others. Tilly's, Inc.
was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.
TILLY'S INC: Ward Appeals Denial of Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2021, that the plaintiff Skylar
Ward, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v.
Tilly's, Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
Case No. BC595405, filed a notice of appeal of the court's order
denying the motion for class certification.
In September 2015, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the company alleging, among other things, various
violations of California's wage and hour laws.
The complaint sought class certification, unspecified damages,
unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees.
In June 2016, the court granted the company's demurrer to the
plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to
state a cause of action against us and dismissed the complaint.
Specifically, the court agreed with the company that the
plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay fails as a
matter of law as the plaintiff and other putative class members did
not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which the
plaintiff's claims are based.
In November 2016, the court entered a written order sustaining the
company's demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint and dismissing all
of plaintiff's causes of action with prejudice.
In January 2017, the plaintiff filed an appeal of the order to the
California Court of Appeal. In February 2019, the Court of Appeal
issued an opinion overturning the trial court's decision, holding
that the plaintiff's allegations stated a claim.
In March 2019, the company filed a petition for review with the
California Supreme Court seeking its discretionary review of the
Court of Appeal's decision. The California Supreme Court declined
to review the Court of Appeal's decision.
Since the case was remanded back to the trial court, the parties
have been engaged in discovery.
In March 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. In July 2020, the company filed its opposition to
the motion for class certification. In September 2020, the
plaintiff filed her reply brief in support of the motion for class
certification.
In October 2020, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
In December 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the
court's order denying her motion for class certification.
The company had defended this case vigorously, and will continue to
do so.
Tilly's said, "We believe that a loss is currently not probable or
estimable under ASC 450, "Contingencies," and no accrual has been
made with regard to the verdict."
Tilly's, Inc. retails casual apparel, footwear, and accessories for
young men and women, and boys and girls in the United States. Its
apparel merchandise includes tops, outerwear, bottoms, and dresses;
and accessories merchandise comprises backpacks, hats, sunglasses,
headphones, handbags, watches, jewelry, and others. Tilly's, Inc.
was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.
TIMOTHY WARD: Middleton Suit Seeks to Certify Class, Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNELL MIDDLETON et al.,
v. TIMOTHY WARD, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-00334-MTT (M.D. Ga.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying:
-- a class consisting of "all persons who are now or will in
the future be held in GSP's Tier II Program segregation
units or other segregation units that indefinitely confine
persons to their cells for 22 or more hours per day;" and
-- a subclass consisting of "all persons who are now or will
in the future be held in GSP's Tier II Program segregation
units or other segregation units that indefinitely confine
persons to their cells for 22 or more hours per day, and
who are or have ever been classified by the Georgia
Department of Corrections as Mental Health Level II or
above."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 16,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hVK6FT
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James F. Bogan III, Esq.
Tamara Serwer Caldas, Esq.
C. Allen Garrett Jr., Esq.
Stephanie N. Bedard, Esq.
Emilia Stromberg, Esq.
Desmond M. Dennis, Esq.
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND
& STOCKTON LLP
1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 815-6500
Facsimile: (404) 816-6555
E-mail: jbogan@kilpatricktownsend.com
tcaldas@kilpatricktownsend.com
agarrett@kilpatricktownsend.com
sbedard@kilpatricktownsend.com
estromberg@kilpatricktownsend.com
ddennis@kilpatricktownsend.com
- and -
Alison Ganem, Esq.
Ryan Primerano, Esq.
SOUTHERN CENTER
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
60 Walton Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 688-1202
Facsimile: (404) 688-9440
E-mail: rprimerano@schr.org
aganem@schr.org
TORRID LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Alonzo Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
THUY THANH ALONZO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TORRID LLC, a California limited
liability company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 2:21-cv-07302 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 13, 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 and the California's Unruh
Civil Rights Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its
Website, https://www.torrid.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.
Torrid LLC is an American women's retail chain formerly owned by
Hot Topic. While it is still owned by Sycamore Partners, owners of
Hot Topic, in 2015 the company branched off to become Torrid,
LLC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
Binyamin Manoucheri, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com
TOWER RESEARCH: Choi Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MYUN-UK CHOI, JIN-HO JUNG,
SUNG-HUN JUNG, SUNG-HEE LEE, and KYUNG-SUB LEE, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. TOWER RESEARCH CAPITAL
LLC and MARK GORTON, Case No. 1:14-cv-09912-KMW-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the case as a class action pursuant to Rule
23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
2. appointing them as class representatives; and
3. appointing Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as Class
Counsel.
Tower Research is a high-frequency trading and financial services
fund started by Mark Gorton and John Martello in 1998.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 16
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XxtUTL
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq.
Richard A. Speirs, Esq.
Jessica (Ji Eun) Kim, Esq.
Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 838-7797
Facsimile: (212)838-7745
E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmisltein.com
rspeirs@cohenmilstein.com
jekim@cohenmilstein.com
dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
YoungKi Rhee, Esq.
WE THE PEOPLE LAW GROUP
6F Jin-Yang Bldg., 47 Kyonggidae-ro
Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, South Korea
Telephone: (822) 2285-0062
Facsimile: (822) 2285-0071
E-mail: ykrhee@wethepeople.co.kr
TRUEACCORD CORP: Emel Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TrueAccord Corp., et
al. The case is styled as Carla Emel, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. TrueAccord Corp., LVNV Funding
LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:21-cv-01612-RDM (M.D. Pa., Sept.
17, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
TrueAccord -- https://www.trueaccord.com/ -- is a digital debt
collection agency that is reinventing the collections
experience.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott H. Bernstein, Esq.
SKOLNICK LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
103 Eisenhower Parkway, Ste. 305
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (203) 246-2887
Email: scott@skolnicklegalgroup.com
TSM CORP: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Rios Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA RIOS, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TSM CORPORATION, a Tennessee
corporation; TAD PGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; XATOR
CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2021-00038991-CU-OE-CTL (Cal.
Super., San Diego Cty., Sept. 13, 2021) seeks civil penalties
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
under the Private Attorneys General Act.
The complaint is brought over Defendants' alleged failure to pay
all regular and minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, meal
and rest period violations, untimely payment of wages, wage
statement violations, failure to timely pay all wages upon
separation, failure to reimburse business expenses, recordkeeping
violations, and paid sick leave violations.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in San Diego County at the
San Diego Convention Center from April 10, 2021 to July 1, 2021, as
an hourly, non-exempt employee. Her job title was youth care
monitor.
The Corporate Defendants provide consultancy and support
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq.
Lauren N. Vega, Esq.
FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC.
3160 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 693-7727
Facsimile: (619) 350-6855
E-mail: nick@ferrarovega.com
lauren@ferrarovega.com
TWITTER INC: Enters Into Agreement to Settle Consolidated Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on September 20, 2021, that the
company has entered in a binding agreement for the settlement of a
previously disclosed consolidated class action lawsuit commenced in
2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California and consolidated under the caption In re Twitter,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:16-CV-05314-JST (SK).
On September 20, 2021, Twitter, Inc. issued a press release
announcing its entry into a binding agreement for the settlement of
a previously disclosed consolidated class action lawsuit commenced
in 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California and consolidated under the caption In re
Twitter, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:16-CV-05314-JST
(SK).
The binding agreement, which is subject to certain conditions,
including court approval of a final settlement agreement, requires
the Company to pay $809.5 million for claims alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The binding agreement does not, and the final settlement agreement
will not, include or constitute an admission, concession, or
finding of any fault, liability, or wrongdoing by the Company or
any defendant.
Twitter said, "There can be no assurance that the final settlement
agreement will be executed or that such agreement will be approved
by the court."
A copy of the press release is available at
https://bit.ly/3kvB18i.
Twitter, Inc. operates as a platform for public self-expression and
conversation in real-time. The company offers various products and
services, including Twitter that allows users to consume, create,
distribute, and discover content; and Periscope, a mobile
application that enables user to broadcast and watch video live
with others. Twitter, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.
TYSOON FOODS: Settles Price-Fixing Class Lawsuit for $35 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Smith, writing for AP, reports that two of the industry's
biggest poultry companies have agreed to pay nearly $35 million to
settle a lawsuit that accused them and several other firms of
conspiring to dominate the industry and fix the prices paid to
farmers who raise the chickens.
Tyson Foods and Perdue Farms agreed to the settlements without
admitting any wrongdoing while the lawsuit remains pending against
several other industry giants, including Pilgrim's Pride, Koch
Foods and Sanderson Farms.
The lawsuit that Alabama farmers filed in Oklahoma federal court
alleges that the contract grower system the meat companies created
pushed them deep into debt to build and maintain chicken barns that
met company standards.
They also said the companies colluded to fix farmer compensation at
low levels to boost corporate profits, making it difficult for the
farmers to survive financially. Generally, chicken producers enter
long-term contracts with meat companies that farmers say lock them
into deals that fix their compensation at unprofitably low levels.
The farmers who sued reported earning between $12,000 and $40,000 a
year while working 12-to-16-hour days all year long while major
meat companies like Tyson and Pilgrim's were reporting annual
profits over $1 billion. Previously, major meat companies have
defended the system as fair; it calls for farmers to provide barns
and labor to raise chickens while the companies provide chicks,
feed and expertise.
Industry officials have said the contract system has worked for six
decades because it benefits companies and farmers.
Perdue Farms spokeswoman Diana Souder said the company, which will
pay $14.75 million, values the relationship it has with its farmers
and Purdue pays farmers based on their performance.
"As an imperative lifeblood of our business, we value the excellent
relationships built on trust we have with our farmers, and remain
committed to providing them fair, competitive contracts that
benefit them and, therefore, our animals, company, customers, and
consumers." Souder said [GN]
U.S. BANK: Gillis Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christopher Gillis, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. U.S. Bank, N.A., Case No.
2184CV01845-BLS1 was removed from State Court to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Sept. 17,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-11528-WGY to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Real Property.
US Bank NA -- https://www.usbank.com/index.html -- operates as a
bank.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chelsea K. Choi, Esq.
Jeffrey S. Morneau, Esq.
CONNOR & MORNEAU, LLP
273 State Street, 2nd Flr.
Springfield, MA 01103
Phone: (413) 455-1730
Email: cchoi@cmolawyers.com
jmorneau@cmolawyers.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Krystle S. Guillory Tadesse, Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP
2800 Financial Plaza
Providence, RI 02903
Phone: (401) 274-9200
Email: krystle.tadesse@lockelord.com
- and -
Stephanie Sprague, Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP
111 Huntingon Avenue
Boston, MA 02199
Phone: (617) 239-0222
Email: stephanie.sprague@lockelord.com
UNITED COAL: Chapman Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Coal Company
LLC. The case is styled as Shaun Chapman, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. United Coal Company LLC, Wellmore
Energy Company, LLC, Wellmore Coal Company, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-00137-CEA-CRW (E.D. Tenn., Sept. 7, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation.
United Coal Company -- https://ucc.metinvestholding.com/en -- a
coal mining company headquartered in Blountville, Tennessee, is a
producer of high grade metallurgical coals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark N Foster, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER
P.O. Box 192
Rockwood, TN 37854
Phone: (270) 213-1303
Email: mfoster@marknfoster.com
UNITED SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chavez Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATIE CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED SECURITY BANK; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21CV386630 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., Sept. 10, 2021) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.
Plaintiff Chavez was employed by the Defendants as staff.
UNITED SECURITY BANK is a full-service bank. The Bank accepts
deposits, makes loans and provides other services for the public.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
William M. Pao, Esq.
Nolan Dilts, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone (310) 888-7771
Facsimile (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
william@setarehlaw.com
nolan@setarehlaw.com
UNITED STATES: Noncitizens Gets Class Status in Huisha-Huisha
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Case No. 1:21-cv-00100-EGS
(D.D.C.), NANCY GIMENA HUISHA-HUISHA, et al., V. ALEJANDRO
MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as Secretary of Homeland
Security, et al., the Hon. Judge Emmet G. Sullivan entered an
order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
2. certifying a class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure consisting of:
"all noncitizens who: (1) are or will be in the United
States; (2) come to the United States as a family unit
composed of at least one child under 18 years old and that
child's parent or legal guardian; and (3) are or will be
subjected to the Title 42 Process";
3. appointing Nancy Gimena Huisha-Huisha and her minor child
I.M.C.H.; Valeria Macancela Bermejo and her minor
daughter, B.A.M.M.; Josaine Pereira-De Souza and her minor
children H.N.D.S.; E.R.P.D.S.; M.E.S.D.S.; H.T.D.S.D.S.;
Martha Liliana Taday-Acosta and her minor children D.J.Z.;
J.A.Z.; Julien Thomas, Fidette Boute, and their minor
children D.J.T.B.; T.J.T.B.; and Romilus Valcourt,
Bedapheca Alcante, and their minor child, B.V.A., as class
representatives;
4. appointing ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project as Lead Class
Counsel, and appointing the Texas Civil Rights Project,
the ACLU of Texas, the ACLU of the District of Columbia,
the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Legal Education and
Legal Services (RAICES), the Center for Gender & Refugee
Studies, and Oxfam America as Class Counsel;
5. denying the Defendants' motion for oral argument ;
6. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction; and
7. enjoining the Defendants from applying the Title 42
Process, including the CDC's August 2021 Order, to the
Class Members;
The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S.
federal executive department responsible for public security,
roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other
countries.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2W6Y4Np at no extra charge.[CC]
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE MENEZES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA d/b/a UC
SAN DIEGO HEALTH, Case No. 3:21-cv-01641-BEN-JLB (S.D. Cal., Sept.
20, 2021) alleges that a data breach occurred because UC San Diego
Health failed to implement reasonable security procedures and
practices, failed to provide its employees with basic cybersecurity
training designed to prevent "phishing" attacks, failed to take
adequate steps to monitor for and detect unusual activity on its
servers, failed to disclose material facts surrounding its
deficient data security protocols, and to timely notify the victims
of the data breach in violation of the California Consumer Privacy
Act of 2018, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information
Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law.
As a result of UC San Diego Health's alleged failure to protect the
sensitive information it was entrusted to safeguard, the Plaintiff
and class members did not receive the benefit of their bargain with
UC San Diego Health and now face a significant risk of
medical-related identity theft and fraud, financial fraud, and
other identity-related fraud now and into the indefinite future,
the lawsuit says.
On July 27, 2021, UC San Diego Health, the academic health system
of the University of California, San Diego, published a notice on
its website stating that it was subject of a data breach whereby
hackers gained unauthorized access to employees' email accounts for
more than four months between December 2, 2020 and April 8, 2021
(the "Data Breach").
The hackers were able to access and exfiltrate highly-sensitive
information stored on UC San Diego Health's servers, including
patients' full names, addresses, dates of birth, email addresses,
fax numbers, claims information (dates and cost of health care
services and claims identifiers), laboratory results, medical
diagnosis and conditions, Medical Record Numbers and other medical
identifiers, prescription information, treatment information,
medical information, Social Security numbers, government
identification numbers, payment card numbers and financial account
numbers and security codes, student ID numbers, and usernames and
passwords.
Plaintiff Denise Menezes is a resident of El Cajon, California and
healthcare patient of Moores Cancer Center, a member facility of UC
San Diego Health.
The Regents of the University of California is a corporation
established under the Constitution of the State of California to
manage, operate, and administer the University of California as a
public trust.
Under the pseudonym "UC San Diego Health System," the Regents of
the University of California provides regional administration of
various medical facilities, including medical centers, clinics,
express and urgent care locations, academic health centers, health
professional schools, and regional supporting services.
The Defendant is doing business in multiple locations throughout
San Diego County. The UC San Diego Health System, and its member
medical facilities, are operated at least in part for the profit or
financial benefit of the Regents of the University of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
HARTLEY LLP
101 West Broadway, Suite 820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-5822
E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com
- and -
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
J. Austin Moore, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
moore@stuevesiegel.com
VERINT SYSTEMS: Unit Appeals Portions of Ruling in Tel Aviv Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verint Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2021, that the motion for leave to
appeal in the Tel Aviv suit against the company's subsidiary,
Verint Systems Limited, is pending.
In March 2009, one of the company's former employees, Ms. Orit
Deutsch, commenced legal actions in Israel against the company's
primary Israeli subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited ("VSL") (Case
Number 4186/09) and against the company's affiliate Comverse
Technology, Inc. (CTI) (Case Number 1335/09).
Also, in March 2009, a former employee of Comverse Limited (CTI's
primary Israeli subsidiary at the time), Ms. Roni Katriel,
commenced similar legal actions in Israel against Comverse Limited
(Case Number 3444/09).
In these actions, the plaintiffs generally sought to certify class
action suits against the defendants on behalf of current and former
employees of VSL and Comverse Limited who had been granted stock
options in Verint and/or CTI and who were allegedly damaged as a
result of a suspension on option exercises during an extended
filing delay period that is discussed in our and CTI's historical
public filings.
On June 7, 2012, the Tel Aviv District Court, where the cases had
been filed or transferred, allowed the plaintiffs to consolidate
and amend their complaints against the three defendants: VSL, CTI,
and Comverse Limited.
On October 31, 2012, CTI distributed all of the outstanding shares
of common stock of Comverse, Inc., its principal operating
subsidiary and parent company of Comverse Limited, to CTI's
shareholders (the "Comverse Share Distribution").
In the period leading up to the Comverse Share Distribution, CTI
either sold or transferred substantially all of its business
operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests in
Verint and in its then-subsidiary, Comverse, Inc.) to Comverse,
Inc. or to unaffiliated third parties.
As the result of these transactions, Comverse, Inc. became an
independent company and ceased to be affiliated with CTI, and CTI
ceased to have any material assets other than its equity interests
in Verint.
Prior to the completion of the Comverse Share Distribution, the
plaintiffs sought to compel CTI to set aside up to $150.0 million
in assets to secure any future judgment, but the District Court did
not rule on this motion. In February 2017, Mavenir Inc. became
successor-in-interest to Comverse, Inc.
On February 4, 2013, Verint acquired the remaining CTI shell
company in a merger transaction (the "CTI Merger"). As a result of
the CTI Merger, Verint assumed certain rights and liabilities of
CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of the foregoing
legal actions.
However, under the terms of a Distribution Agreement entered into
in connection with the Comverse Share Distribution, the company, as
successor to CTI, are entitled to indemnification from Comverse,
Inc. (now Mavenir) for any losses it may suffer in its capacity as
successor to CTI related to the foregoing legal actions.
Following an unsuccessful mediation process, on August 28, 2016,
the District Court (i) denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the
suit as a class action with respect to all claims relating to
Verint stock options and (ii) approved the plaintiffs' motion to
certify the suit as a class action with respect to claims of
current or former employees of Comverse Limited (now part of
Mavenir) or of VSL who held unexercised CTI stock options at the
time CTI suspended option exercises.
The court also ruled that the merits of the case would be evaluated
under New York law.
As a result of this ruling (which excluded claims related to Verint
stock options from the case), one of the original plaintiffs in the
case, Ms. Deutsch, was replaced by a new representative plaintiff,
Mr. David Vaaknin.
CTI appealed portions of the District Court's ruling to the Israeli
Supreme Court. On August 8, 2017, the Israeli Supreme Court
partially allowed CTI's appeal and ordered the case to be returned
to the District Court to determine whether a cause of action exists
under New York law based on the parties' expert opinions.
Following two unsuccessful rounds of mediation in mid to late 2018
and in mid-2019, the proceedings resumed. On April 16, 2020, the
District Court accepted plaintiffs' application to amend the motion
to certify a class action and set deadlines for filing amended
pleadings by the parties.
CTI submitted a motion to appeal the District Court's decision to
the Supreme Court, as well as a motion to stay the proceedings in
the District Court pending the resolution of the appeal.
On July 6, 2020, the Supreme Court granted the motion for a stay.
On July 27, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their response on the merits
of the motion for leave to appeal, and the parties are waiting for
further instructions or decisions from the Supreme Court.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Verint Systems Inc. provides actionable intelligence solutions
worldwide. Verint Systems Inc. was founded in 1994 and is
headquartered in Melville, New York.
VERUS INTERNATIONAL: Maryland Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Verus International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 20, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit filed before the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland.
On April 23, 2021, a class action lawsuit was commenced against the
Company in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland and alleges various violations of the federal securities
laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Company intends to defend this matter and although the ultimate
outcome cannot be predicted with certainty, based on the current
information available, the Company does not believe the ultimate
liability, if any, will have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition or results of operations.
Verus International, Inc. engages in the supply of consumer food
products in the Middle East, North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, the
United Arab Emirates, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, and the United States. The company provides frozen
foods, primarily meat, poultry, seafood, vegetables, and French
fries, as well as beverage products under its own brand primarily
to supermarkets, hotels, and other members of the wholesale trade;
and other consumer packaged foodstuff. It also offers consumer
packaged goods, such as cosmetic and fragrances; and cold-storage
facilities. The company was formerly known as RealBiz Media Group,
Inc. and changed its name to Verus International, Inc. in October
2018. Verus International, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is based in
Gaithersburg, Maryland.
VIEW INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of October 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of View, Inc. (NASDAQ : VIEW) investors
that acquired shares between Nov. 30, 2020 and Aug. 16, 2021.
Investors have until October 18, 2021 to seek an active role in
this litigation.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.
CF Finance Acquisition Corp. II was a special purpose acquisition
company ("SPAC" or "blank check company") which was formed for the
specific purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange,
asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization, or similar
business combination with one or more businesses. CF Finance
Acquisition Corp. II and View combined via a business combination
with View as the surviving, public entity on March 8, 2021.
It is alleged in this complaint that, throughout the Class Period,
View made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
that: (i) View had not properly accrued warranty costs in relation
to its product; (ii) there was a material weakness in View's
internal controls in regard to accounting and financial reporting
in relation to warranty accrual; (iii) View's financial results for
prior periods were misstated as a result; and (iv) View's positive
statements about it's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, as result.
View announced on August 16, 2021 that it "began an independent
investigation concerning the adequacy of the company's previously
disclosed warranty accrual." View's share price fell more than 24%
on this news, damaging investors.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than Nov. 30,
2020 and Aug. 16, 2021.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]
VYSTAR CORP: Stipulation of Dismissal Filed in LaChapelle Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vystar Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the counsel in the class
action suit initiated by Robert LaChapelle has filed a Stipulation
of Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice.
On March 13, 2020, Robert LaChapelle, a former employee of Rotmans
Furniture, the Company's majority owned subsidiary, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint against Rotmans and two of its prior owners (including
Steve Rotman, President of the Company) in the Worcester Superior
Court alleging non-payment of overtime pay and Sunday premium pay
pursuant to the Massachusetts Blue Laws (Ch. 136), the
Massachusetts Overtime Law (Chapter 151, Section 1A), and the
Massachusetts Payment of Wages Law (Chapter 149 Sections 148 and
150).
Specifically, LaChapelle has alleged that Rotmans failed to pay him
and other sales people who were paid on a commission-only basis
overtime pay at a rate of least 1.5 times the basic minimum wage or
premium pay (also at 1.5 times the basic minimum wage) for hours
they worked on Sundays.
The parties settled with the named Plaintiffs, Robert LaChapelle
and certain other employees, each on an individual basis, for a de
minimus amount which was paid in March 2021.
Plaintiffs' counsel then filed a Stipulation of Dismissal of the
Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice.
The settlement was included in operating expenses for the year
ended December 31, 2020.
However, after settlement, three additional former employees made
similar claims and the Company is reviewing the matter.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Vystar Corporation creates natural rubber latex. The Company's
product is used in an extensive range of products including
balloons, textiles, footwear and clothing (threads), adhesives,
foams, furniture, carpet, paints, coatings, protective equipment,
sporting equipment, and especially health care products such as
condoms, surgical and exam gloves.
WATERDROP INC: Faces Sandoz Suit Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------
SIDNEY SANDOZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. WATERDROP INC., PENG SHEN, KANGPING SHI,
NINA ZHOU, KAI HUANG, HAIYANG YU, YAO HU, GUANG YANG, COLLEEN A. DE
VRIES, COGENCY GLOBAL INC., GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C., MORGAN
STANLEY & CO. LLC, BOFA SECURITIES, INC., CHINA MERCHANTS
SECURITIES (HK) CO., LIMITED, CLSA LIMITED and HAITONG
INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES COMPANY LIMITED, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-07683 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2021) is a securities class
action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Waterdrop
American Depositary Shares (ADSs) in or traceable to the Company's
May 2021 initial public offering seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Act of 1933.
On April 16, 2021, the Company filed with the SEC a registration
statement on Form F-1 for the IPO, which, after an amendment, was
declared effective on May 6, 2021. Allegedly, the Registration
Statement failed to disclose that Waterdrop was the subject of an
intense regulatory investigation and pending crackdown by Chinese
authorities because of a variety of market abuses perpetrated by
the Company used to artificially inflate Waterdrop's short-term
financial results in the lead up to the IPO, including, inter alia:
(i) operating insurance platforms without proper governmental
authorizations; (ii) mispricing risks for consumers; and (iii)
illicitly using client information. Indeed, unbeknownst to
investors, the reason that Waterdrop had discontinued its mutual
aid segment was because it had been ordered to do so by Chinese
regulators. Rather than disclose these adverse facts, the
Registration Statement stated that Waterdrop had "achieved
exponential growth since [its] inception" and was poised to take
advantage of a massive market opportunity among under-insured
Chinese communities, says the suit.
Due to the alleged conduct, on September 13, 2021, Waterdrop ADSs
dropped to a low of just $3 per ADS -- 75% below the price at which
Waterdrop ADSs were sold to the investing public just four months
previously. At the time of the filing of this complaint, the price
of Waterdrop ADSs has remained significantly below the IPO price,
added the complaint.
Plaintiff Sidney Sandoz purchased Waterdrop ADSs in or traceable to
the IPO.
Waterdrop Inc. operates an insurance technology platform and is
based in Beijing, China.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 674-4674
Facsimile: (312) 674-4676
E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Ralph M. Stone, Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
1700 Broadway, 41st Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 292-5690
Facsimile: (212) 292-5680
E-mail: ralphs@johnsonfistel.com
WATERDROP INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP filed a class action lawsuit
charging Waterdrop Inc. (NYSE: WDH), certain of its top executives
and directors, as well as the underwriters of Waterdrop's May 2021
initial public offering (the "IPO") with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933. Filed in the Southern District of New York
on September 14, 2021 and captioned Sandoz v. Waterdrop Inc., the
Waterdrop class action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers of
Waterdrop American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or
traceable to the IPO.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Waterdrop class
action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here.
You can also contact attorney Brian Cochran of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. Lead
plaintiff motions for the Waterdrop class action lawsuit must be
filed with the court no later than November 15, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Waterdrop class action lawsuit alleges that
the IPO's Registration Statement failed to disclose that Waterdrop
was the subject of an intense regulatory investigation and pending
crackdown by Chinese authorities because of a variety of market
abuses perpetrated by Waterdrop used to artificially inflate
Waterdrop's short-term financial results in the lead up to the IPO,
including, among other things: (i) operating insurance platforms
without proper governmental authorizations; (ii) mispricing risks
for consumers; and (iii) illicitly using client information. The
Waterdrop class action lawsuit further alleges that, unbeknownst to
investors, the reason that Waterdrop had discontinued its mutual
aid segment was because it had been ordered to do so by Chinese
regulators. Furthermore, Waterdrop had suffered rapidly
accelerating operating losses in the first quarter of 2021 which
was completed weeks before the IPO.
On June 17, 2021, Waterdrop issued a press release announcing
Waterdrop's financial results for the quarter conducted before the
IPO. In doing so, Waterdrop reported that its operating costs and
expenses had ballooned over 75%, or RMB579.1 million, to RMB1,343.9
million (US$205.1 million). As a result, Waterdrop suffered an
operating loss for the quarter of RMB460.6 million (US$70.3
million), compared with operating loss of RMB111.1 million for the
same period of 2020 - a more than four-fold increase. This rapid
increase in operating expenses was due largely to the cessation of
Waterdrop's mutual aid business and growing customer acquisition
costs.
Then, on August 11, 2021, multiple news sources reported that
China's banking and insurance watchdog, the China Banking and
Insurance Regulatory Commission, had issued an order directing
insurance companies to cease improper marketing and pricing
practices rampant in the industry and enhance their user privacy
protections. Failure to comply would reportedly result in the
offenders being "severely punished" by Chinese authorities. As
Bloomberg reported, "[r]egulators have since moved to shutter some
operations including mutual aid healthcare platforms operated by
Waterdrop." The article continued: "The latest move will stymie
growth in an industry that had been expected to grow to 2.5
trillion yuan ($385 billion) in a decade."
Finally, on September 8, 2021, Waterdrop revealed that its
operating losses for the quarter ended June 30, 2021 had continued
to accelerate, totaling RMB815.4 million (US$126.3 million),
compared with an operating profit of RMB7.2 million for the same
period of 2020. This was once again due to a sharp increase in
Waterdrop's operating costs and expenses, as Waterdrop's operating
costs and expenses during the quarter increased by RMB1,081.1
million, or 160.5% year over year, to RMB1,754.7 million (US$271.8
million) from RMB673.6 million for the same period of 2020.
On September 13, 2021, Waterdrop ADSs dropped to a low of just $3
per ADS –75% below the price at which Waterdrop ADSs were sold to
the investing public just four months previously.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Waterdrop
ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the Waterdrop 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 Waterdrop
class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of
its choice to litigate the Waterdrop class action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the
Waterdrop class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as
lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron
Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top
50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion
for investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by
any other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
Brian Cochran, 800-449-4900
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
WELLS FARGO: Echard Suit Moved From W.D. Wash. to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, transfers the case, BRIAN ECHARD,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. C21-0112-JCC (W.D.
Wash.), to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
The Plaintiff, an Ohio resident, filed a complaint establishing the
putative class action with the Court, naming Wells Fargo, who is
headquartered in Northern California, as the Defendant. The Court
issued an order to show cause why the case should not be
transferred to the Southern District of Ohio.
Based on the parties' responses to that order, it appears clear
that venue for the matter is most appropriate in the Northern
District of California, rather that the Western District of
Washington or the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Coughenour
finds. Accordingly, the Judge transfers the case to the Northern
District of California.
The Clerk is directed to take the steps necessary to transfer the
case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 7, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/k5px69du from Leagle.com.
WORKHORSE GROUP: Cohen Sues Over More Than 50% Drop of Stock Price
------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL COHEN and DAVID COHEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DUANE HUGHES, STEVE
SCHRADER, ROBERT WILLISON, RAYMOND J. CHESS, H. BENJAMIN SAMUELS,
GERALD B. BUDDE, HARRY DEMOTT, MICHAEL L. CLARK, JACQUELINE A.
DEDO, and PAMELA S. MADER, Defendants and WORKHORSE GROUP, INC.,
Nominal Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00601-SJD (S.D. Ohio, September
21, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
their fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, corporate waste,
violations of the Exchange Act, and insider selling.
The case arises from the repeated false and misleading statements
made on behalf of Workhorse Group by the Defendants regarding the
company's ability to obtain a highly coveted delivery vehicle
contract with the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). Specifically, the
Defendants caused Workhorse Group to make false and/or misleading
statements, and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the company had no
assurance or indication from USPS that USPS was going to select an
electric vehicle as its Next Generation Delivery Vehicle, and the
company was merely hopeful for this outcome despite failing to meet
basic criteria for manufacturing capacity, design, and safety; (ii)
the company had concealed the fact that electrifying the USPS's
entire fleet would be impractical and extremely expensive, as
revealed by the postmaster general in explaining the USPS's
decision not to select an electric vehicle; (iii) materially
misrepresenting nonbinding interest in the company's vehicles as a
purported backlog of orders; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing,
Workhorse's public statements were materially false and misleading,
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the truth emerged, the company's stock price fell $14.87 per
share, or 47%, on unusually heavy trading volume, to close at
$16.47 per share on February 23, 2021. The price of Workhorse
securities continued its precipitous decline in after-hours-trading
and opened on February 24, 2021 at $14.07 per share, a fall of over
50% from the previous open, erasing nearly $1.8 billion dollars in
market capitalization, says the suit.
Workhorse Group, Inc. is a company that develops and manufactures
electric delivery vehicles, with its principal place of business in
Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas J. Connick, Esq.
CONNICK LAW, LLC
25550 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 101
Beachwood, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 364-0512
Facsimile: (216) 609-3446
E-mail: tconnick@connicklawllc.com
- and –
Michael I. Fistel, Jr.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
40 Powder Springs Street
Marietta, GA 30064
Telephone: (770) 200-3104
Facsimile: (770) 200-3101
E-mail: MichaelF@johnsonfistel.com
- and –
Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-0063
Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
E-mail: FrankJ@johnsonfistel.com
ZINUS INC: Mattresses Contain Fiberglass Particles, Class Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sokolove Law reports that in a recently filed class action lawsuit,
consumers allege that the fiberglass particles found inside of
mattresses made by Zinus, Inc. have leaked out, leading to harmful
health side effects and contamination in their homes.
More than 200 individuals have already joined the class action
against Zinus, whose mattresses are sold at Target, Walmart, and
online on Amazon and eBay, among other retailers.
Owners of Zinus mattresses have reported instances of fiberglass
contamination in their homes, which has led to expensive fiberglass
abatements, losses of furniture, carpets, and clothing, and a host
of physical injuries, including:
-- Cuts
-- Scratches
-- Rashes
-- Itchiness
-- Red and blotchy skin
-- Eye irritation
-- Trouble breathing
-- Increases in asthma severity
-- Allergic skin reactions
Some plaintiffs involved in the class-action lawsuit have described
instances of bodily harm to infants and children. The class-action
alleges Zinus failed to warn consumers about potential fiberglass
leakage, which led to undisclosed injuries and costly damage to
homes.
Is Fiberglass Dangerous?
Fiberglass is sometimes used in mattresses and other products as a
fire retardant and/or as insulation. Due to its microscopic size --
a single fiberglass particle is typically measured in units of
microns -- it is often invisible to the naked eye.
About fiberglass, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) states:
"The important thing to remember about [fiberglass particles] is
that they are health hazards when inhaled; proper respiratory
equipment must be worn and adequate ventilation provided. Working
with fiberglass material should not be dangerous if you are
properly trained, and if you use the appropriate protective
equipment."
Over the years, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
has received a number of complaints regarding the fiberglass that
is sometimes found inside of foam mattresses.
According to allegations, fiberglass contamination from Zinus
mattresses occurred when owners unzipped the mattress cover to wash
it. Once the cover was removed, the fiberglass particles beneath it
spread throughout homes. Because the mattresses' warnings were not
specific and did not include information about fiberglass,
unsuspecting consumers assumed the unzippable mattress cover was
intended to be removed for washing.
Given this, affected consumers allege they were not prepared for or
protected against fiberglass contamination in their homes. Ridding
a house of fiberglass contamination can cost a consumer up to
$20,000 dollars, depending on the severity. Total losses of
furniture, clothing, and other household items due to fiberglass
contamination can also cost consumers thousands more.
Zinus denies any wrongdoing in connection with the class action
suit, claiming that its mattresses are safe and meet compliance
with all federal safety regulations.
To learn more, or to see if you may be eligible to file a Zinus
mattress lawsuit, contact our experienced team today. [GN]
ZUMIEZ INC: Resolution in Principle Reached in Herrera Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zumiez Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2021, that parties in Alexia Herrera, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc.,
have reached a resolution in principle for all class claims, which
will be subject to the court's approval.
A putative class action, Alexia Herrera, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc., was filed against the
company in the Eastern District Court of California, Sacramento
Division under case number 2:16-cv-01802-SB in August 2016.
Alexandra Bernal filed the initial complaint and then in October
2016 added Alexia Herrera as a named plaintiff and Alexandra Bernal
left the case.
The putative class action lawsuit against the company alleges,
among other things, various violations of California's wage and
hour laws, including alleged violations of failure to pay reporting
time.
In May 2017 the company moved for judgment on the pleadings in that
plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay should fail as a
matter of law as the plaintiff and the other putative class members
did not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which
the plaintiff's claims are based. In August 2017, the court denied
the motion.
However, in October 2017 the district court certified the order
denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings for immediate
interlocutory review by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit. The company then filed a petition for permission to
appeal the order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
which petition was then granted in January 2018.
The company's opening appellate brief was filed on June 6, 2018 and
the plaintiff's answering appellate brief was filed August 6, 2018.
Our reply brief to the Plaintiff's answering appellate brief was
filed on September 26, 2018 and oral arguments were completed on
February 4, 2019.
On May 20, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit granted the company's motion for leave to file a
supplemental brief addressing new authority. On June 10, 2019, the
plaintiff's supplemental answering brief was filed with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The company then filed its supplemental reply brief to the
plaintiff's supplemental answering brief with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 24, 2019.
On March 19, 2020 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit published its opinion (i) affirming the District Court's
denial of judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff's reporting time
pay and minimum wage claims, (ii) reversing the District Court's
denial of judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff's expense
reimbursement claim and (iii) refusing to certify the reporting
time pay question to the California Supreme Court.
On April 2, 2020 the company filed a petition for rehearing en banc
to certify the reporting time pay question to the California
Supreme Court and on April 27, 2020 plaintiff filed a response to
the company's petition for rehearing en banc.
The company in turn filed a reply in support of its petition for
rehearing en banc on May 1, 2020. On May 14, 2020, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the company's
petition for rehearing en banc.
The case was remanded to the Eastern District of California,
Sacramento for further proceedings. The parties held mediation with
a private mediator on June 23, 2021.
The parties reached a resolution in principle for all class claims,
which will be subject to the court's approval.
Zumiez said, "We anticipate submitting the settlement for the
court's approval within 90 to 120 days. The estimated settlement of
$2.8 million was recorded in selling, general and administrative
expenses on the condensed consolidated statement of income for the
three months ended July 31, 2021."
Zumiez Inc., founded in 1978, is a mall-based specialty retailer
providing sports-related apparel, footwear, equipment, and
accessories. It also sells miscellaneous novelties and DVDs aimed
at young men and women between the ages of 12 and 24 and
private-label apparel. In addition, it sells merchandise on its Web
site, zumiez.com. The company is based in Everett, Washington.
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Balks at Imerys Suit, Seeks Payment for Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Gill, writing for Bloomberglaw.com, reports that Johnson &
Johnson is fighting back against Imerys Talc America Inc.'s
bankruptcy court lawsuit to have the health product giant pay for
consumers' asbestos injury claims.
The indemnity contracts between J&J and its talc supplier, Imerys,
don't cover the type of asbestos claims that Imerys is facing in
its Chapter 11 case, J&J said Tuesday in its motion to dismiss the
suit.
One of the contracts covers handling talc materials "at the point
of delivery," while another addresses claims arising from J&J's
"internal use of talc," Johnson & Johnson said.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NCNW Sues J&J for Ads Targeting Black Women
------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Strand, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reports that on July 27,
2021, the National Council of Negro Women (NCNW) sued Johnson &
Johnson (J&J) for targeted marketing regarding its controversial
talcum powder products. The advocacy group claims J&J knew its
talc-based products were harmful to consumers. Its talcum powder
products have been linked to asbestos exposure and ovarian cancer.
Despite this knowledge, J&J marketed these products without
warnings and geared ad campaigns toward Black women. Claimants say
their lifelong use of these products ultimately led to cancer.
Asbestos exposure is linked to diseases, such as mesothelioma and
other types of cancer.
J&J's talc-based products, such as baby powder, have been household
staples for decades. However, in recent years, the popularity of
these products has waned. This prompted the company to refocus its
marketing toward a high-use demographic.
Internal communications from 2006 suggest J&J redirected its
marketing efforts toward Black women. At the time, 60% of Black
women were using J&J's talc-based products. In comparison, during
the same time period, only 30% of the general population were using
the products.
J&J created ad strategies to appeal to Black women specifically.
The company provided 100,000 samples at churches and other areas
throughout Chicago. A 2010 radio campaign targeted "curvy Southern
women 18-49 skewing African American."
J&J even considered signing Black female icons, such as Aretha
Franklin or Patti Labelle, as spokeswomen for its products.
NCNW claims not only did J&J target Black women, but the company
knew its products were unsafe.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rapid-American Closes Ch. 11 With $12.3MM Trust
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Archer, writing for Law360, reports that the former retail and
consumer holding company Rapid-American Corp.'s 8-year Chapter 11
case came to a close with a New York bankruptcy judge approving its
plan to use $12.3 million in insurance settlements to pay asbestos
injury claims.
At a brief virtual hearing, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge David Jones
approved Rapid-American's Chapter 11 plan, which will use what the
company said were its last significant assets to establish an
asbestos injury trust fund before dissolving after 64 years of
corporate existence. "This is effectively the last chapter of the
debtor's long and interesting history," Rapid-American counsel
Andrew Muha said.
*********
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 ***