/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220103.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, January 3, 2022, Vol. 24, No. -4
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Clements Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
ABBOTSFORD, BC: Sumas Prairie Residents File Suit Over Floods
ABSOPURE WATER: Court Grants in Part Guy's Bid to Stay Discovery
ALIF SAMI CORP: Rahaman Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
ALPHA CAPITAL: Juan Monteverde Investigates Semantix Merger
AMERICAN HOMEPATIENT: Alan Presswood's Bid to Reconsider Denied
AMERICAN HONDA: $2.26-Mil. in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Banh Suit
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Faces Hancock Suit Over Fruit Cocktail Labels
ARRIVAL SA: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of February 22 Deadline
ASSESSOR OF NEW HYDE PARK: Ryke Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
ASTORIA DENTAL: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AVEC DRINKS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BAIDU INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 14 Deadline
BAIDU INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of February 14 Deadline
BAKER PETROLITE: King Sues Over Chemical Technicians' Unpaid Wages
BAPTIST HEALTH: Misclassifies Salaried Employees, Macheak Suit Says
BARSTOOL SPORTS: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BEAUTY SCIENCE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BEENVERIFIED INC: Escobar Sues Over Stolen Personal Information
BERKELEY LIGHTS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 7 Deadline
BERKELEY LIGHTS: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of February 7 Deadline
BIO WORLD: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BISHOP OF CHARLESTON: Class Cert Response Extended to Jan. 19, 2022
BLACKBERRY LIMITED: NY Case Goes to Trial After Failed Mediation
BOISSON INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BRENDA FORMAN: Suit Filed in S.D. Florida
BRINKER RESTAURANT: Saldana Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BROOKLYNESS INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CALFORNIA PIZZA: Andrews Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE: Didier Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CANADA: Courts OK $8BB First Nations Drinking Water Settlement
CAPITAL ONE: Harper Class Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
CAPITAL ONE: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $190MM
CAREWELL FAMILY: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CENTRAL PAYMENT: Loses Bid to Decertify Class in Custom Hair Suit
CENTURY LLC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHEGG INC: Faces Leventhal Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
CHEGG INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of February 22 Deadline
CHERYL A. LARABEE: Bourgeois Files Suit in Del. Chancery. Ct.
CHINA: Grant of Aharon's Bid to Continue Service Efforts Endorsed
CIRCLE K: Filing of Class Status Bid Continued to Feb. 17, 2022
CLAYA INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CLOOPEN GROUP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 8 Deadline
CMC MATERIALS: Juan Monteverde Investigates Securities Violation
COCA-COLA: Barnes Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Class Status Hearing in Willis Rescheduled
COLLEGE TOWN: Mainville Seeks Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
COMMUNITY MEDICAL: Miranda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CONSTANT FORCE: Timothy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CONTAINMENT SOLUTIONS: Floyd Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Everett Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CREATIVE HAIRDRESSERS: Olsen Files Suit in D. Maryland
CRESTWOOD BEHAVIORAL: Navarro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DAVID SHINN: Court OKs Parties' Bid to Stay Class Cert. Deadlines
DEL TACO: Lifshitz Law Probes Firm for Possible Breach Class Action
DELAWARE, OH: Class Certification Bid Extended to Feb. 25, 2022
DEMANDBASE INC: Gbeintor Files Suit in N.D. California
DENKA PERFORMANCE: DuPont Dismissed with Prejudice in Butler Suit
DHC SUPPLY: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DISCOVERY INC: Finger Balks at Merger Deal With WarnerMedia
DISCOVERY NATURAL: Delaughter Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA
DOCUSIGN INC: Faces Collins Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
DOCUSIGN INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of February 22 Deadline
DOCUSIGN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of February 22 Deadline
DOTFIT LLC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DR. SCHAR USA: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DR. SHRINK: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DRACO DISTRIBUTION: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DRIVE NEW JERSEY: Petri Files Suit in D. New Jersey
EDUCATIONAL TESTING: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EDWARD R. MARSZAL: James Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ELEMENTS PRODUCTION: Raus Files Suit in S.D. New York
ESSENDANT CO: Ochoa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Crews Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California
FAITHLIFE LLC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FARADAY FUTURE: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
FARADAY FUTURE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of February 22 Deadline
FAT SNAX: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FOREVER HOME SERVICES: Koga Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
FRESNO, CA: Feb. 14 Water Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
FTP DESIGNS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GANGESHWAR LLC: Chavez Files Suit in E.D. New York
GARDEN GROVE, CA: Phan Files Suit in C.D. California
GARTNER STUDIOS: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GAVLAK LLC: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GEMPLER'S INC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GENERAL MOTORS: Snyder Sues Over Inaccurate Information Labels
GENESCO INC: Kirkpatrick Files Suit in N.D. New York
GINGKO BIOWORKS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of January 18 Deadline
GMRI INC: Breland Slams Improper Wages, Unsafe Workplace
GN AUDIO USA: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOOGLE LLC: Settles Location Data Breach Class Action in Canada
HAIN CELESTIAL: 2nd Cir. Vacates, Remands Class Action Dismissal
HAIRTAMIN LLC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HARBOR BAY: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HARTFORD INSURANCE: Hobson Files Suit in D. New Jersey
HEARTLAND EXPRESS: Freitas, Calvert Seek Class Certification
HEARTWISE INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HENKEL CORPORATION: Body Spray Contains Benzene, Lazo Suit Alleges
HENKEL US: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Simmons Suit Says
HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY: Faces Synergy Over Anticompetitive Practices
HOLLYWOOD CHAIRS: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
I.C. SYSTEM: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
I.C. SYSTEM: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
INDIVIOR INC: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Suboxone Drug
INFOPAY INC: Bensen Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
JAMES BELFORD: Ct. Tosses Plummer Bid for Class Certification
JANKMAN LLC: Chimienti Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
JUPITER WELLNESS: Lifshitz Law Probes Firm for Breach Class Action
KINGS COUNTY NURSERIES: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KNIFECENTER INC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Foster Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
LAMPSUSA LLC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LARKSTONE ACQUISITIONS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LISA CHARMEL USA: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LOCKS GALLERY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LYNN & LAUREN: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MAJOR ENERGY: Glikin Suit Transferred to D. Maryland
MAKEY MAKEY: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MALONE'S SERVICE: Long Seeks to Recover Porters' Unpaid Wages
MANHATTAN MIDTOWN: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MARATHON DIGITAL: Faces Schlatre Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop
MARATHON DIGITAL: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Feb. 15 Deadline
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Regional School Files RICO Suit in D. Maine
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Southwestern Central Files RICO Suit
MCMC LLC: Mauthe Seeks to Certify Class in TCPA Suit
MDL 1917: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert. Briefing Schedule
MID-STATES CONCRETE: Haynes Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
MIMECAST LIMITED: Lifshitz Law Probes Firm for Breach Class Action
MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL: Scheduling Order Entered in Sandro Suit
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Monopolizes Licensed Products, Class Suit Says
NATIONAL RIFLE: McEwen's Bid to File 2nd Amended Suit Partly OK'd
NAVIENT CORP: $35MM Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for March 17
NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: 2d Cir. Tosses George Lehman Securities Suit
NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Suit over Merger Deal Remains Pending
NEW BALANCE: Faces New "Made in the USA" Class Action Lawsuit
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Class Cert Hearing Reset for March 30, 2022
ORGANOGENESIS HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
PAYSAFE LIMITED: Kessler Topaz Reminds of February 8 Deadline
PEOPLEASE LLC: Court Denies Bids for Arbitration in Espinoza Suit
PHARMACIELO LTD: Calif. Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Faces Doe Class Action Suit Over Data Breach
PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 24 Deadline
REDWIRE CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 15 Deadline
REHABILITATION CENTER: Court Issues Final Judgment in Valentine
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of February 15 Deadline
SEQUITUR ENERGY: Delaughter Seeks Drilling Consultants' Unpaid OT
SHAMROCK FOODS: Court Issues $295K Final Judgment in Arreola Suit
SLEEP NUMBER: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of February 14 Deadline
SLEEP NUMBER: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of February 14 Deadline
SOUTH VALLEY ALMOND: Claims in Cabrera Suit vs AgReserves Narrowed
SUTTELL & HAMMER: DeAngelis Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
T-MOBILE USA: Winkler Suit Transferred From S.D. Tex. to W.D. Mo.
TARGET CORP: Faces Maybaum Class Suit Over Free Gift Cards
TENET FINTECH: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 18 Deadline
TIGER BRANDS: Listeriosis Suit Continues After Death of Newborn
TIKTOK INC: Faces Suit From Content Moderators Over Child Abuse
TIKTOK INC: Moderator Files Class Action Over Emotional Distress
VIZIV TECHNOLOGIES: Family Trust Balks at Beach of Fiduciary Duties
VW CREDIT: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Boehm Suit
WEST MONROE: Faces Daky ERISA Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
WILBUR-ELLIS CO: Billing Rates Order Issued in Blue Buffalo Suit
YOUNG LIVING: Court Junks MacNaughten Class Suit
ZYMERGEN INC: Biao Wang Named as Lead Plaintiff in Shankar Suit
*********
3M COMPANY: Clements Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
------------------------------------------------------
William Clements, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS,
INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC, ARCHROMA U.S.,
INC., ARKEMA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to
Atofina, S.A., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as
successor-in-interest to Ciba, Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.,
CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually and as successor-interest
to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC.,
CHEMICALS, INC., CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION, CORTEVA,
INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS,
INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS &
COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont
Chemical Solutions Enterprise, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and
as successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc., KIDDE PLC,
INC., NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-03953-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 6,
2021), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
lymphoma cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 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
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
ABBOTSFORD, BC: Sumas Prairie Residents File Suit Over Floods
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Fumano, Gordon Hoekstra, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports
that a pair of Sumas Prairie residents filed a proposed
class-action suit on Dec. 23 in B.C. Supreme Court against local
authorities and the province for damages suffered in the
devastating flood caused by a torrential downpour in mid-November.
In the suit filed in an Abbotsford court, Caroline Mostertman, a
winery, distillery and farm owner, and Ted Dykman, who runs a
family dairy operation, list the City of Abbotsford, the Fraser
Valley Regional District and the Province of B.C., as well as a
number of unnamed companies, as defendants.
Class-action suits, which allow one or more people to sue for a
group of people with similar claims, have to be approved by the
courts.
Prospective plaintiffs in this case could include any residents in
the Abbotsford region who suffered losses in the floods.
While an official cost of damages has not been tabulated,
Abbotsford mayor Henry Braun earlier pegged repair costs at $2
billion for the devastating flood that caused damages to farms and
other properties, and caused thousands of people to evacuate the
Sumas Prairie area and other areas of Abbotsford.
Sumas Prairie residents argue the city, regional district and
province "failed to warn of the impending and foreseeable Sumas
flood in a timely manner" and "failed to implement emergency
measures and warnings."
If the city, regional district and province had provided "adequate
and timely" warning to Mostertman, Dykman and others of the
impending weather events preceding the flood, and implemented
emergency measures and warnings, the damages suffered would have
been prevented or lessened, states the civil claim.
It would have given Sumas Prairie residents time to move equipment,
inventory, personal property and other movable items, the suit
argues.
The plaintiffs are seeking general, special and punitive damages.
As the claim was filed on Dec. 23, there has been no response in
court from the defendants. In response to Postmedia questions, the
city and regional district each said they had no comment on the
suit. The province also said it had no comment on the suit, but
noted it takes the health and safety of British Columbians
seriously in emergency situations.
The claim was filed by lawyer Anthony Vecchio, founding partner of
Slater Vecchio, a Vancouver-based firm specializing in class action
and personal injury suits.
Vecchio said he was moved by what he called the "tragedy" of the
Fraser Valley farmers.
"They're salt of the earth, they're very resilient," Vecchio said.
"But they were devastated … It's heartbreaking."
Dykman said his dairy farm, on the Sumas Prairie's western edge
near the U.S. border crossing, has suffered three floods in the
past decade, but November's was the worst.
The Dykman Cattle Company lost about 10 cows and 30 calves during
the flood, he said.
"It was pretty hard on everybody. When you start losing your
animals and your livelihood, that hits home. It was definitely an
emotional time, there's no doubt about it.
The suit hinges on the Sumas Prairie residents proving "gross
negligence."
That's because there is a provision in the province's Emergency
Program Act that exempts the province and local authorities from
civil liability for damages, for omitting to do any act authorized
or required by the law unless there is gross negligence.
In their argument for "gross negligence," the Sumas Prairie
residents laid out 21 particulars in their claim, including failing
to warn of the risk of the impending Sumas flood in a timely
manner, or not at all.
The particulars also included failing to adequately monitor weather
conditions despite knowing Sumas Prairie farmers and others were at
an increased risk of harm from flooding due to their proximity to
the Sumas and Nooksack rivers, the history of flooding in the Sumas
Prairie and the inadequacy of the Sumas dike.
In commenting on the civil liability exemption, Vecchio said:
"We're using that Act as a sword, not as a shield. . . . That Act
basically sets out the policies and procedures that they need to
follow." [GN]
ABSOPURE WATER: Court Grants in Part Guy's Bid to Stay Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JUSTIN GUY, Plaintiff v. ABSOPURE WATER
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 20-12734 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Mark A.
Goldsmith of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion & Order:
(1) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's
motion to stay discovery; and
(2) amending the scheduling order.
Plaintiff Justin Guy has filed a motion to stay discovery. Guy
requests a stay or, alternatively, a three-month extension of the
discovery deadline and all other deadlines. Guy argues that a stay
or extension is necessary to allow sufficient time for the
discovery dispute resolution process with the special discovery
master, who was appointed to help the parties resolve their
outstanding discovery disputes.
The parties discussed Guy's motion with the special discovery
master, and the special discovery master then wrote an interim
report setting forth her views on the issues raised by the motion.
Following the special discovery master's interim report, the Court
conferred with the special discovery master to better understand
the parties' positions. The Court then issued an order informing
the parties that it believed that an extension of discovery until
March 1, 2022, and an extension of the dispositive motion deadline
to March 29, 2022, would be appropriate.
The Court gave the parties an opportunity to file memoranda
regarding their views on the Court's proposal. Guy filed a
memorandum, asking the Court to enter a stay until the Court
resolves Guy's forthcoming motion to compel.
Judge Goldsmith notes that due to the parties' demonstrated
difficulty in judiciously resolving their discovery disputes,
deadlines are necessary to properly incentivize the parties to
timely complete discovery. Thus, a stay would be inappropriate.
However, the Court will extend the discovery and dispositive motion
deadlines by two and a half months, which will give the parties
sufficient time to work with the special discovery master to
resolve their outstanding discovery disputes.
Accordingly, Guy's motion is granted in part and denied in part,
and the deadlines contained in the scheduling order are amended as
follows:
-- March 1, 2022 -- Discovery as to conditional certification
issues and as to the individual Plaintiff's claims as it
stands at the present time;
-- March 1, 2022 -- Discovery as to MCA exemption;
-- March 29, 2022 -- Motions for Summary Judgment on the Motor
Carrier Act (MCA) exemption;
-- March 29, 2022 -- Plaintiff's Motion to Conditionally
Certify Collective Action;
-- Joint Status Report -- 10 days after ruling on motions for
summary judgment and motion to conditionally certify class
action;
-- TBD -- All Other Motions, Including Motions in Limine;
-- TBD -- Final Settlement Conference;
-- TBD -- Joint Final Pretrial Order;
-- TBD -- Final Pretrial Conference; and
-- TBD -- Trial - Jury.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Dec. 20,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8en54v from
Leagle.com.
ALIF SAMI CORP: Rahaman Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
------------------------------------------------------
Mizanoor Rahaman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ALIF SAMI CORP., SUB39 INC., SUBWAY WORLDWIDE, INC.,
DOCTOR’S ASSOCIATES LLC, FRANCHISE WORLD HEADQUARTERS, LLC, 3132
PARTNERS LLC, MOHAMMED MATIN, ABWABUL CHOWDHURY, and JANET GOMES,
Case No. 531206/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., Dec. 7, 2021), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the New York Labor
Law by failing to pay the Plaintiff proper compensations.
The Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in illegal and
improper wage practices. These practices include: requiring
Employees to perform work without compensation during meal breaks;
denying Employees their lawful meal breaks; requiring Employees to
perform work without compensation outside of their scheduled
shifts; failing to pay Employees at their straight or agreed upon
rate for all hours worked under 40 hours in a week; failing to pay
Employees overtime of time and on-half their regular rate of pay
for all hours worked over 40 in a week; illegally withholding wages
lawfully earned by Employees; failing to provide Employees with
complete and/or accurate wage statements; failing or refusing to
provide Employees with accurate statements regarding hours worked
and corresponding dates of work performed, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at various fast-food
Subway Restaurant locations throughout the New York City area
between 2018 and 2021.
Alif has a main office located in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew H. Herlihy, Esq.
SCALE, LLP
50 Cleveland Drive
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
Phone: (914) 424-9312
Email: Mherlihy@scalefirm.com
ALPHA CAPITAL: Juan Monteverde Investigates Semantix Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
Alpha Capital Acquisition Co. (ASPC), relating to its merger with
Semantix. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/alpha-capital-acquisition-co. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Ortho Clinical Diagnostics Holdings plc (OCDX), relating to its
proposed acquisition by Quidel Corp. Under the terms of the
agreement, OCDX shareholders will receive 0.1055 shares of Quidel
and $7.14 in cash per share they own. Click here for more
information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/ortho-clinical-diagnostics-holdings-plc.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
SeaChange International, Inc. (SEAC), relating to its proposed
merger with Triller HoldCo LLC. Under the terms of the agreement,
SEAC will merge with Triller, and be renamed as "TrillerVerz Corp."
Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/seachange-international-inc. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Skillsoft Corp. (SKIL), relating to its merger with Codecademy.
Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/skillsoft-corp. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
Zanite Acquisition Corp. (ZNTE), relating to its merger with Eve
UAM LLC. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/zanite-acquisition-corp. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Heat Biologics, Inc. (HTBX), relating to its merger with Elusys
Therapeutics, Inc. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/heat-biologics-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities
litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is
committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. It
is listed in the Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Report. Our lawyers have significant experience
litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr.
Monteverde is recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in
Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less
than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been
selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our
firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant
victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e)
of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for
shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.
If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341
Attorney Advertising. (C) 2021 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
AMERICAN HOMEPATIENT: Alan Presswood's Bid to Reconsider Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ALAN PRESSWOOD, D.C., P.C, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v.
AMERICAN HOMEPATIENT, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 4:17-cv-1977-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied the
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of its denial of the motion
for class certification.
Senior District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., notes that the
matter has been pending since 2017. A related case was filed by the
same attorneys and a different plaintiff in 2014 and then dismissed
on the eve of the class certification hearing. The plaintiff in the
2014 lawsuit was Radha Geismann M.D., P.C. The case was filed
shortly thereafter.
The Court denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification on
Aug. 19, 2021, after protracted discovery and briefing. The
Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration or, in the alternative,
clarification of the Court's order denying class certification.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant sent out thousands of
unsolicited faxes to the putative class members in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The TCPA generally
provides for penalties of $500 per fax transmission, 47 U.S.C.
Section 227(b)(3), meaning that a class action comprised of
thousands of recipient-plaintiffs--if the elements of the claims
can be proven--stands to raise far more money in the aggregate than
through individual claims. However, the Court held that class
certification was inappropriate for several reasons.
Judge Limbaugh notes that the matter has largely revolved around
the Plaintiff's unsuccessful search for certain fax logs relevant
to the case both in this case and the earlier, 2014 case. The 2014
case's plaintiff, Geismann, did not file its lawsuit until almost
14 months after receiving the relevant fax. As part of discovery in
that case, the Defendant searched its fax server, electronic
databases, and the "SQL" servers used by RightFax for the
transmission logs relevant to Geismann's complaint. But it could
not locate any fax transmission logs for the period in question.
The Defendant explained that it did not retain fax logs as a
routine part of its business practice, and the fax logs from June
2013 were likely automatically overwritten, or "purged," well
before Geismann filed suit.
Just before the hearing on Geismann's motion for class
certification, Geismann dismissed its lawsuit. Approximately one
week prior, on June 22, 2017--four years after receiving the
Medicare fax--Plaintiff Presswood initiated this lawsuit in
Missouri state court.
The Court allowed the Plaintiff repeated discovery extensions. In
2019, the Court, over the Defendant's objection, ordered a
third-party inspection of 26 backup tapes from June 2013 and then
of additional backup tapes from September 2013 and December 2013.
Nothing came of those searches. The parties had already
collectively served four subpoenas on AT&T, the Defendant's
telecommunications provider for the relevant outgoing fax
transmissions, for relevant documents, to no avail.
Then, the Plaintiff discovered the identity of another of the
Defendant's telecommunications providers, MetTel, from whom the
Plaintiff wanted to subpoena fax transmission logs. In line with
the Defendant's objection, the Court observed that it is perhaps
likely that MetTel will not have any responsible documents to the
Plaintiff's proposed subpoena. Regardless, the Court allowed the
reopening of discovery for that subpoena in June 2021 because it
appeared to be the Plaintiff's last chance to find evidence
regarding whether the Defendant's faxes were actually received by
the recipients.
In that June 2021 order, the Court noted that the Plaintiff also
points out that, to the extent AT&T actually was the Defendant's
service provider, the Defendant was unable to provide any account
numbers with AT&T to assist with the investigation. Then, in its
order on Class Certification, the Court noted that the Defendant
"states in its Response Memorandum in opposition to class
certification that defendant has in fact repeatedly identified the
AT&T account numbers associated with the fax numbers at issue, both
in this action and in Geismann. This Court regrets the error, and
plaintiff is admonished not to mislead the Court."
The Plaintiff contends in its motion for reconsideration that it
did not mislead the Court, insisting that AT&T had in fact told it
that the AT&T account numbers supposedly provided by the Defendant
were not AT&T account numbers. The Plaintiff also stated in its
motion that it had again "reached out to AT&T" for confirmation.
But the Plaintiff asked the Court to correct its footnote to
reflect that the Plaintiff had in fact not misled the Court.
Two weeks later, the Plaintiff moved to supplement its motion. The
Plaintiff divulged that it had heard back from AT&T and that AT&T
had in fact found documents responsive to the account numbers that
were provided. AT&T apparently explained that account numbers
related to a subsidiary phone company of AT&T, and AT&T produced
nearly 8,000 pages of responsive documents. The Plaintiff, thus,
moved to supplement its motion with this information but maintained
that its earlier statement about the Defendant's failure to provide
account numbers was correct to the best of its knowledge at the
time.
I. Legal Standard
Because a ruling on class certification is interlocutory, a motion
for reconsideration of such a nonfinal order must meet the Rule
60(b) standard. See Elder-Keep v. Aksamit, 460 F.3d 979, 984 (8th
Cir. 2006); Anderson v. Raymond Corp., 340 F.3d 520, 525 (8th Cir.
2003).
II. Discussion
Judge Limbaugh holds that the Plaintiff has not shown exceptional
circumstances to justify the Court's reconsideration. The
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration has two prongs. First, the
Plaintiff wants the Court to withdraw the footnote addressing the
AT&T account numbers.
The Court stated that as noted in the June 2021 order that the
Plaintiff also points out that, to the extent AT&T actually was the
Defendant's service provider, the Defendant was unable to provide
any account numbers with AT&T to assist with the investigation. The
Defendant states in its Response Memorandum in opposition to class
certification that the Defendant has in fact repeatedly identified
the AT&T account numbers associated with the fax numbers at issue,
both in this action and in Geismann. The Court regrets the error,
and the Plaintiff is admonished not to mislead the Court.
The Plaintiff insists that it did not mislead the Court because it
understood at the time that the account numbers provided by the
Defendant could not be AT&T account numbers. That later proved to
be untrue, as AT&T found relevant documents with an AT&T
subsidiary. It appears to the Court that communication between and
among counsel and third parties has been deeply flawed at every
turn in this case.
Judge Limbaugh states that the memorandum and order of which the
Plaintiff complains is not inaccurate, and anyone wishing to delve
further into this case's tortured history is free to read the
relevant documents for a full understanding of the matter. The
Court declines to alter its past order.
Second, the Plaintiff asks the Court to grant certification of its
proposed class of fax recipients despite having already considered
and denied the motion. The Plaintiff's primary argument is that the
Defendant should not be able to rely on class member identification
problems resulting from its own failure to keep records (quoting
Practice Management Support Services, Inc. v. Cirque du Soleil,
Inc., 301 F.Supp.3d 840, 859 (N.D. Ill. 2018)). The Plaintiff
argues that the Defendant never adequately searched its backup
tapes to locate the required information.
The Court disagreed. The Plaintiff offers no new facts or law to
change the Court's conclusion nor its determination that class
certification is inappropriate under these circumstances.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied.
The Plaintiff's motion to supplement is granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 20,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/299brwf8 from
Leagle.com.
AMERICAN HONDA: $2.26-Mil. in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Banh Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge R. Gary Klausner of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Western Division, issued an order granting
award of attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards in the
lawsuit entitled JIMMY BANH, et al., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR
CO., INC., a California corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-5984 RGK (ASx) (C.D. Cal.).
The Court, having considered (1) the Stipulation and Notice of
Defendant's Non-Opposition to Award of Attorneys' Fees, Expenses,
and Service Awards ("Stipulation"); (2) Plaintiffs' Notice of
Motion and Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Service Awards,
and the Memorandum of Points and the Authorities thereto ("Motion")
and attached exhibits and declarations; (3) Defendant's Memorandum
in Opposition to the Motion and attached exhibits and declarations;
(4) Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in support of the Motion and
attached exhibits and declarations; and (5) the pleadings and other
papers on file in this Action, and with good cause appearing,
therefore, orders that:
1. The Stipulation contains the Plaintiffs' request for an award of
attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,260,794, and the Plaintiffs'
request for reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses in the
amount of $477,701. The Stipulation also contains the Defendant's
statement that it does not oppose, based on the facts and
circumstances of this case, the total amount requested by the
Plaintiffs, and that the Defendant takes no position on the
Plaintiffs' requested allocation or apportionment of the total
amount requested.
2. The Court finds the requested Stipulated fee award of
$2,260,794, which represents approximately 67% of the Class
Counsel's lodestar, is fair and reasonable under the lodestar
method based upon the following factors: (1) the results achieved;
(2) the risks of litigation; (3) whether there are benefits to the
class beyond the immediate generation of a cash fund; (4) the
contingent nature of the representation and the opportunity cost of
bringing the suit; and, (5) reactions from the class. As such, the
Court finds that the requested fee award comports with the
applicable law and is justified by the circumstances of the case.
3. The Court further finds that the Class Counsel's lodestar, as
modified by the Stipulation, was reasonable because the Class
Counsel's current hourly rates are reasonable for the Los Angeles
area and that the total number of hours billed by Hagens Berman and
Goldenberg Schneider timekeepers, as modified by the Stipulation,
were also reasonable.
4. In sum, upon consideration of the Stipulation, the Motion,
Opposition, Reply, and accompanying Declarations and exhibits, and
based upon all matters of record including the pleadings and papers
filed in the action, the Court finds that $2,260,794 is a
reasonable and proper fee award in the case.
5. The Court also finds that the costs incurred by Class Counsel in
this matter totaling $477,701 were reasonable in light of the needs
and scope of the case.
6. Finally, the Court has determined, in its discretion, that the
distribution of service awards to 18 Class Representatives totaling
$120,000 is also reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances
for this case, and will be paid as follows: $10,000 service awards
for Roberta Bilbrey, Jamal Samaha, George Quinlan, Sarah Gravlin,
Mark Klein, Daniel Allan, Paul Gonzales, and Kristen Gratton, and
$4,000 service awards for Jimmy Banh, Mark Peoples, Alexis Chisari,
Michael Brumer, Dave Jahsman, John Bartholomew, Vimal Lawrence,
Mark Klein, Adam Pryor, and Srikarthik Subbarao.
Accordingly, it is ordered and decreed that:
1. The Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees totaling
$2,260,794 is granted;
2. The Class Counsel's request for reimbursement of
out-of-pocket
litigation costs and expenses totaling $477,701 is granted;
and
3. The Class Representatives are awarded $120,000 in
total service awards, to be paid as set forth.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 20, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdhnn8t4 from Leagle.com.
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Faces Hancock Suit Over Fruit Cocktail Labels
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Hancock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-01735-SMY
(S.D. Ill., Dec. 22, 2021) sues over Defendant's alleged false and
deceptive representations and omissions of "Mucho Mango Fruit
Cocktail" under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.
The Plaintiff seeks class-wide injunctive relief because the
practices continue. The Plaintiff and class members desired to
purchase a product that contained more vitamin C than similar
beverages, and was the type of food acceptable to contain added
nutrients.
According to the complaint, the relevant front label
representations include "Mucho Mango," "Fruit Juice Cocktail," "All
Natural," pictures of mangos and "VITAMIN C FORTIFIED" and "VITAMIN
C FORTIFIED - ANTIOX."
Nutrient content claims tell consumers about the levels of a
nutrient in a food. FDA regulations, identical to those of this
State, restrict nutrient content claims to those that are
specifically authorized.
If a nutrient content claim is not authorized, it is prohibited.
The purpose is to prevent consumers being deceived by the endless
terms that marketers can devise in order to gain advantage in the
marketplace, at the detriment of the public. Relative nutrient
content claims compare the level of a nutrient in one food with
another food, the suit says,.
Arizona Beverages manufactures, labels, markets, and sells mango
drinks identified as "Mucho Mango Fruit Cocktail," under the
Arizona brand ("Product").
Had Plaintiff and proposed class members known the truth, they
would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it.
The Product is sold for a price premium compared to other similar
products, no less than approximately $3.79 per 128 oz, a higher
price than it would otherwise be sold for, absent the misleading
representations and omission, added the suit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
ARRIVAL SA: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of February 22 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Arrival ("Arrival" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:ARVL, ARVLW) on behalf of purchasers of Arrival
securities between November 18, 2020 and November 19, 2021, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged
to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/arvl.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies, and made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company would record a substantially greater net loss and
adjusted EBITDA loss in the third quarter of 2021 compared to the
third quarter of 2020; (2) the Company would experience far greater
capital and operational expense to operate and deploy its
microfactories and manufacture EV vehicles than it had disclosed;
(3) the Company would not capitalize on or achieve profitability or
provide meaningful revenue in the time periods disclosed; (4) the
Company would not achieve its disclosed production and sales
volumes; (5) the Company would not meet the disclosed production
rollout deadlines. Accordingly, the Company materially overstated
its financial and operational position and/or prospects, and (6) as
a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading 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/arvl 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
Arrival you have until February 22, 2022, 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. [GN]
ASSESSOR OF NEW HYDE PARK: Ryke Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Village of New Hyde Park, et al. The case is styled as Patricia
Ryke, All other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed
SCHEDULE A, Petitioner v. The Assessor of the Village of New Hyde
Park, The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of New Hyde
Park, Respondents, Case No. 615853/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau
Cty., Dec. 20, 2021).
The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)."
New Hyde Park -- https://vnhp.org/ -- is a village in the Towns of
Hempstead and North Hempstead in Nassau County, on Long Island, in
New York, United States.[BN]
The Petitioner is represented by:
MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP
132 SPRUCE ST
CEDARHURST, NY 11516-1915
ASTORIA DENTAL: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Astoria Dental Group,
P.C. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Astoria Dental Group, P.C., Case No.
1:21-cv-10966 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Astoria Dental Group -- https://www.cosmeticdentistrynewyork.com/
-- offers routine cleanings, X-rays, fillings and expert dental
advice.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
AVEC DRINKS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avec Drinks Co. The
case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Avec
Drinks Co., Case No. 1:21-cv-06993-AMD-VMS (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
AVEC -- https://avecdrinks.com/ -- is re-examining cocktail mixers
with its all-natural ingredients and low-sugar and -calorie
products.[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
BAIDU INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 14 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Baidu, Inc. ("Baidu" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
BIDU) in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Baidu securities between March 22, 2021 and
March 29, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors have until February 14, 2022 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
traded while in possession of material non-public information and
about Archegos and its need to fully liquidate its position in the
Company because of margin call pressure. While in possession of
material, non-public adverse information, Defendants collectively
sold billions of dollars' worth of Company shares. Later, when the
information became publicly known, the price of the Company's
common stock declined sharply as a result of such disclosure.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Baidu shares and suffered a
loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Alexandra Raymond by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
About Bragar Eagel
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
BAIDU INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of February 14 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 24
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Baidu Inc. (NASDAQ: BIDU) between
March 22, 2021 and March 29, 2021, 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 February
14, 2022.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Baidu securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Baidu class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2228.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 February 14, 2022.
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. Many of these firms do not actually
litigate securities class actions. 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 complaint, Goldman Sachs
Group Inc. ("Goldman Sachs") and Morgan Stanley sold a large number
of Baidu shares during the Class Period while in possession of
material, non-public information. Defendants Goldman Sachs and
Morgan Stanley knew that Archegos Capital Management, a family
office with $10 billion under management, would need to fully
liquidate its position in Baidu because of margin call pressure. As
a result of these sales, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley avoided
billions in losses combined and the price of Baidu's stock declined
sharply, damaging investors.
To join the Baidu class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2228.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
BAKER PETROLITE: King Sues Over Chemical Technicians' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER KING v. BAKER PETROLITE LLC, BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD
OPERATIONS LLC, BAKER HUGHES ENERGY SERVICES LLC, BAKER HUGHES
HOLDINGS LLC, and DOES 1 though 25, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV46202
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 17, 2021) seeking only to
recover penalties for himself, and on behalf of all aggrieved
employees that worked for the Defendants.
The Plaintiff does not seek to recovery anything other than
penalties as permitted by California Labor Code Section 2699, the
suit says.
The penalties sought for the underlying violations are for the
following statutory violations: (i) failure to pay all wages earned
by California workers, including the required minimum wage for all
hours worked and overtime wages, (ii) failure to indemnify
employees for all business-related expenditures, (iii) failure to
provide mandated timely meal periods and/or rest periods and
related break premium pay for missed or late breaks, among other
violations of the California Labor Code, Wage Orders and Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004, sections 2698 et seq (PAGA), added
the suit.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants at a Los Angeles County jobsite
as a chemical technician for about four months until his separation
from the company on or about May 25, 2021.
During his employment, he contends that the Defendants failed to
pay aggrieved employees, including him, wages for all hours worked.
Aggrieved employees also did not receive any premium pay for late
or missed breaks per the requirements of California law. The
Defendants also failed to reimburse workers, include Plaintiff for
all business related expenditures such as use of personal cell
phone for work for the initial weeks of their employment, he adds.
Baker Petrolite manufactures petrochemicals. The Company provides
chemical services and products in the hydrocarbon recovery and
processing industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelly Y. Chen, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KELLY Y. CHEN
13200 Crossroads Parkway North, Suite 475
City of Industry, CA 91746
Telephone: (626) 381-9886
Facsimile: (626) 389-5455
E-mail: attorney@KellyChenLaw.com
BAPTIST HEALTH: Misclassifies Salaried Employees, Macheak Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL MACHEAK, individually and On behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BAPTIST HEALTH, Case No. 4:21-cv-01217-BRW (E.D. Ark.,
Dec. 20, 2021) is a class action and a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act for
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees, as a result of Defendant's alleged intentional
misclassification of Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees as exempt from FLSA and AMWA maximum hours requirements.
As a result of Defendant's intentional misclassification, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated salaried employees were not
paid the legally required overtime premium when they worked more
than 40 hours in any one-week period, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees received a set
salary from the Defendant, regardless of how many hours they worked
in any given work week. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated
salaried employees did not qualify as exempt computer systems
analysts, engineers, programmers, or other similarly skilled
workers, the suit added.
Baptist Health is a not-for-profit health care organization.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris Burks, Esq.
WHLAW I WE HELP
1 Riverfront Pl. - Suite 745
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Telephone: (501) 891-6000
E-mail: chris@wh.law
BARSTOOL SPORTS: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barstool Sports, Inc.
The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Barstool Sports, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-10978 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Barstool Sports -- https://www.barstoolsports.com/ -- is a sports &
pop culture blog covering the latest news and viral highlights of
each and everyday with blogs, videos and podcasts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
BEAUTY SCIENCE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beauty Science Group,
Inc. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Beauty Science Group, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-10732 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Beauty Science doing business as Hair La Vie --
https://hairlavie.com/ -- offers a complete line of chemical-free,
organic hair care products that are designed to promote hair growth
using 100% natural ingredients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
Lake Success, NY 11042
Phone: (917) 957-0978
Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com
BEENVERIFIED INC: Escobar Sues Over Stolen Personal Information
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Escobar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BEENVERIFIED, INC. and BEENVERIFIED, LLC, Case No.
3:21-cv-09433-AGT (N.D. Cal., Dec. 7, 2021), is brought against the
Defendants who violated California's Right of Publicity statute,
California common law prohibiting misappropriation of a name or
likeness, and California's Unfair Competition Law, by using the
Plaintiff's names, likenesses, photographs, and personas in
advertisements for website subscriptions without consent, in
violation of their intellectual property and privacy rights.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have never used
www.beenverified.com or www.peoplesmart.com, nor did they provide
their names, ages, phone numbers, addresses, photographs, or any
other personal information to BeenVerified. The Plaintiff was
distressed to discover that BeenVerified is using his name,
personal information, and persona to advertise paid subscriptions
to its website. The Plaintiff and Class Members did not consent to
BeenVerified using their names, personal information, photographs,
and personas to advertise website subscriptions or any other
product. BeenVerified advertises website subscriptions by publicly
displaying teaser profiles of Plaintiff and Class Members with
their names, ages, current and past addresses, current and past
phone numbers, names of relatives, and other personal information.
The Plaintiff does not know how BeenVerified obtained his name,
current and past home addresses, phone numbers, names of relatives,
and additional personal information. BeenVerified states on its
website that the profiles "include information from multiple
databases, career history, social media profiles, online photos and
other records." BeenVerified does not disclose specific sources.
BeenVerified misappropriated Plaintiff's and Class Members' names,
personal information, and personas without permission or consent
from Plaintiff or the Class, says the complaint.
BeenVerified owns and operates at www.beenverified.com and
www.peoplesmart.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
Marie N. Appel, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: (415) 358-6913
Facsimile: (415) 358-6293
Email: mram@forthepeople.com
mappel@forthepeople.com
- and -
Benjamin R. Osborn, Esq.
102 Bergen St.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (347) 645-0464
Email: ben@benosbornlaw.com
- and -
Sam Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703-3515
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (509) 4423
Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
BERKELEY LIGHTS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Berkeley Lights, Inc. ("Berkeley Lights" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:BLI) in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Berkeley Lights
securities between July 17, 2020 and September 14, 2021, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until February 7,
2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that:
(1) Berkeley Lights' flagship instrument, the Beacon, suffered from
numerous design and manufacturing defects including breakdowns,
high error rates, data integrity issues and other problems,
limiting the ability of biotechnology companies and research
institutions to consistently use the machines at scale; (2)
Berkeley Lights had received numerous customer complaints regarding
the durability and effectiveness of Berkeley Lights' automation
systems, including complaints related to the design and
manufacturing; (3) the actual market for Berkeley Lights' products
and services was a fraction of the $23 billion represented to
investors because of, among other things, the relatively high cost
of Berkeley Lights' instruments and consumables and inability to
provide the sustained performance necessary to justify these high
costs; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements to investors
during the Class Period regarding Berkeley Lights' business,
operations and financial results were materially false and
misleading.
On September 15, 2021, research analyst firm Scorpion Capital
issued a scathing investigative report, titled "Fleecing Customers
And IPO Bagholders With A $2 Million Black Box That's A Clunker,
While Insiders and Silicon Valley Bigwigs Race To Dump Stock. Just
Another VC Pump at 27X Sales. Target Price: $0," which criticized
Berkeley Lights' technology and questioned the durability of
Berkeley Lights' most important business relationships and its
business growth plan. Although Scorpion Capital stated it was short
Berkeley Lights, the information contained in the Scorpion Capital
report was purportedly based on extensive proprietary research and
analysis, including 24 research interviews with former Berkeley
Lights employees, industry scientists, and end users across 14 of
Berkeley Lights' largest customers. Among other findings, the
report detailed a "trail of customers who allege they were
'tricked,' misled, or over-promised into buying a $2 million lemon"
and concluded that the "reality is so far from BLI's grandiose hype
that we believe its product claims and practices may constitute
outright fraud." On this news, the price of Berkeley Lights common
stock fell by nearly 30% over two trading days, damaging
investors.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Berkeley Lights shares and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or
Alexandra Raymond by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone
at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no
cost or obligation to you. [GN]
BERKELEY LIGHTS: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of February 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on Dec. 24
disclosed that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of
investors who purchased the common stock of Berkeley Lights, Inc.
("Berkeley Lights" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:BLI) between July 17,
2020 and September 14, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you purchased Berkeley Lights common stock during the Class
Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by
no later than February 7, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.
Berkeley Lights investors who wish to learn more about the
litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should
click here, or email investorinfo@lchb.com, or call Sharon M. Lee
of Lieff Cabraser at 1-800-541-7358.
Background on the Berkeley Lights Securities Class Litigation
Berkeley Lights, headquartered in Emeryville, CA, is a
biotechnology company. The chief product in its platform is the
"Beacon," a system for detailed analysis of cells at scale.
The action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that:
(1) the Beacon had multiple design and manufacturing issues
including breakdowns, high error rates, and data integrity
problems, effectively hindering the Company's customers from
consistently using machines at scale; (2) Berkeley Lights had
received many customer complaints regarding the Company's
automation systems, including complaints related to their design
and manufacturing; and (3) the true market for Berkeley Lights'
products and services was only a portion of the $23 billion market
that the Company represented to investors, in view of the
comparably large cost of the Berkeley Lights' products and their
incapacity to perform consistently enough to justify their high
costs.
On September 15, 2021, research firm Scorpion Capital released a
report on the Company entitled "Fleecing Customers And IPO
Bagholders With A $2 Million Black Box That's A Clunker, While
Insiders and Silicon Valley Bigwigs Race To Dump Stock. Just
Another VC Pump at 27X Sales. Target Price: $0." The report
detailed problematic issues with Berkeley Lights' technology and
called into question the strength of Berkeley Lights' primary
business relationships as well as the Company's plan to grow its
business. Scorpion Capital purportedly based its report on 24
research interviews with former employees of Berkeley Lights, and
17 scientists and users among 14 of the Company's biggest
customers. The report found a "trail of customers who allege they
were ‘tricked,' misled, or over-promised into buying a $2 million
lemon," and that the "reality is so far from BLI's grandiose hype
that we believe its product claims and practices may constitute
outright fraud." On this news, the price of Berkeley Lights common
stock fell by $6.14, or 18.74%, from its closing price of $32.76 on
September 14, 2021, to close at $26.62 on September 15, 2021, on
extremely heavy trading volume.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.
The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."
For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
BIO WORLD: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bio World
Merchandising, Inc. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bio World
Merchandising, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10981 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bio World Merchandising, Inc. -- https://www.bioworldmerch.com/ --
manufactures and distributes apparel, footwear, and
accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
BISHOP OF CHARLESTON: Class Cert Response Extended to Jan. 19, 2022
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tuition Payer 100, et al.,
v. The Bishop of Charleston, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00613
(D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard M. Gergel entered an order
extending time to respond to Plaintiffs motion for class
certification until Jan. 19, 2022.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other
Personal Injury.[CC]
BLACKBERRY LIMITED: NY Case Goes to Trial After Failed Mediation
----------------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2021, that a
consolidated class action lawsuit in New York will proceed to trial
after the parties failed to reach an agreement following mediation.
The Court has not set a trial date.
Between October and December 2013, several purported class action
lawsuits and one individual lawsuit were filed against the company
and certain of its former officers in various jurisdictions in the
U.S. and Canada alleging that they made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the company's financial condition
and business prospect. These class actions are still pending in
their respective court of jurisdiction.
On March 14, 2014, the four putative U.S. class actions were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, and on May 27, 2014, a consolidated amended class
action complaint was filed. On March 13, 2015, the court issued an
order granting the company's motion to dismiss. The court denied
the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and for leave to file an
amended complaint on November 13, 2015. On August 24, 2016, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District
Court order dismissing the complaint, but vacated the order denying
leave to amend and remanded to the District Court for further
proceedings in connection with the plaintiffs' request for leave to
amend. The Count granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend
on September 13, 2017.
On September 29, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended class action complaint which added the company's former
Chief Legal Officer as a defendant. The Court denied the motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on March 19, 2018.
Blackberry filed a reply in support of their summary judgment
motion and a motion to strike plaintiffs' response to their
separate statement of undisputed facts on July 22, 2021. Plaintiffs
filed an opposition to the motion to strike on August 5, 2021 and
Blackberry filed a reply in support on August 10, 2021. On August
13, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for approval of a
class notice plan. On September 10, 2021, the Court granted in part
and denied in part the parties' motions and granted the plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for approval of the class notice plan. Postcard
notice was mailed on October 8, 2021, publication notice was issued
starting on October 18, 2021. On May 5, 2021, the parties
participated in a mediation Judge Layn Phillips which did not
result in an agreement. The Court has not set a trial date.
BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments around the world based in
Waterloo, Ontario.
BOISSON INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boisson Inc. The case
is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly situated persons v. Boisson Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-06996 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Boisson Inc. doing business as Slow Cow -- https://slowcow.com/ --
is a relaxation drink Dubbed an "anti-energy" drink, produced in
Quebec, Canada.[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
BRENDA FORMAN: Suit Filed in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brenda F. Forman, et
al. The case is styled as John Doe, Jane Roe, individually, and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Brenda F. Forman, in her
capacity as Clerk of the Court for the 17th Judicial Circuit, in
and for Broward County, Florida; Harold F. Pryor, in his capacity
as State Attorney for the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward
County, Florida; Gregory Tony, in his capacity as Sheriff, in and
for Broward County, Florida; Case No. 0:21-cv-62523-KMW (S.D. Fla.,
Dec. 17, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights
Act.
Brenda F. Forman --
https://www.browardclerk.org/AboutUs/AboutTheOffice -- is the first
African American and female to serve as Clerk in Broward County,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary Kollin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES GARY KOLLIN, P.A.
1856 N. Nob Hill Road, Suite 140
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33322-6548
Phone: (954) 723-9999
Fax: (954) 791-6565
Email: pleadings@garykollinlaw.com
BRINKER RESTAURANT: Saldana Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brinker Restaurant
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Veronica Saldana,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Brinker Restaurant Corporation, Brinker International Payroll
Company, L.P., Brinker International, Inc., Case No. CGC21597124
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 15, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Brinker International, Inc. -- https://brinker.com/ -- owns,
operates, and franchises the Chili's Grill & Bar and Maggiano's
Little Italy restaurant concepts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Ottinger, Esq.
OTTINGER EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
535 Mission St 14th Floor,
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-508-7786
Email: robert@ottingerlaw.com
BROOKLYNESS INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooklyness, Inc. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Brooklyness, Inc. doing
business as: Beyond, Case No. 1:21-cv-10983 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Brooklyness, Inc. doing business as Beyond --
https://ridebeyond.com/ -- is a micromobility subscription service
transforming the way people commute and move in cities throughout
the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
CALFORNIA PIZZA: Andrews Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Pizza
Kitchen, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jean Andrews, and on
behalf of all similarly situated v. California Pizza Kitchen, Inc.,
Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2021-00312816-CU-PO-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Dec. 17, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other PI/PD/WD – Civil Unlimited."
California Pizza Kitchen -- https://www.cpk.com/ -- is an American
casual dining restaurant chain that specializes in California-style
pizza.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES
555 12th Street, Suite 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 891-9800
Fax: (510) 891-7030
CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE: Didier Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Statewide
Communities Development Authority, et al. The case is styled as
Mary Didier, Leticia Jones, Shane Jones, on behalf of themselves
and on behalf of a class consisting of all persons similarly
situated within the State of California v. California Statewide
Communities Development Authority, Edwards Builders & Developers
Inc, Edwards Builders and Developers, PACE Funding Group LLC, Does
1 to 100, Case No. 34-2021-00313065-CU-BT-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Dec. 21, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Business Tort – Civil Unlimited."
The California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA)
-- https://cscda.org/ -- was created in 1988, under California's
Joint Exercise of Powers Act, to provide California's local
governments with an effective tool for the timely financing of
community-based public benefit projects.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David W. Martin, Esq.
DAVID W. MARTIN LAW GROUP
108 Springs St.
Fort Mill, SC 29715-1722
Phone: (803) 855-1607
Email: david@davidwmartinlaw.com
CANADA: Courts OK $8BB First Nations Drinking Water Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Liewicki, writing for CBC News, reports that thousands of
people who have been affected by years-long drinking water
advisories could see compensation, after courts approved an
$8-billion class-action settlement in what one chief called a
"historic moment" for First Nations in Canada.
Canada's Federal Court and Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench issued
a joint decision on Dec. 22 approving the settlement in two
national class-action lawsuits launched against the federal
government by First Nations living under drinking water
advisories.
The settlement in the two class-action suits was first agreed upon
in July. The class included any member of a band whose land was
subject to a water advisory that lasted at least one year, at any
point from Nov. 8, 1995, until the present.
In addition to compensation, the suits also sought to force the
government to immediately construct, or approve and fund the
construction of, appropriate water systems for the class members.
The agreement approved on Dec. 22 will offer compensation to
individuals deprived of clean drinking water and modernize Canada's
First Nations drinking water legislation.
Doreen Spence, chief of Tataskweyak Cree Nation in northern
Manitoba, said she is "extremely pleased" with the courts' decision
to approve the settlement agreement.
"This is a historic moment for Tataskweyak Cree Nation and First
Nations across the country. First Nations will now be able to work
with Canada in a more meaningful way, and have access to water
standards on reserve that have never existed before," Spence said
in an emailed statement to CBC
"We look forward to seeing the day where all First Nations have
access to safe water, now and forever."
Tataskweyak Cree Nation, which has been under a drinking water
advisory since 2017, and two Ontario communities -- Curve Lake
First Nation and Neskantaga First Nation -- led the class-action
lawsuits, which could see approximately 142,000 individuals from
258 First Nations compensated, along with 120 First Nations.
Michael Rosenberg, a lawyer from McCarthy Tétrault LLP, was lead
counsel for the three plaintiffs.
The settlement in the case, which he started working on in 2019, is
"a game-changer" for First Nations communities that have been
affected by long-term drinking water advisories, he said.
"On the one hand, it will provide compensation so that they can
begin to heal from harms that they should never have had to suffer.
On the other hand . . . it provides a path forward and hope for the
future and infrastructure commitments to ensure that they will not
continue to be plagued by long-term drinking water advisories,"
Rosenberg said.
"They will . . . have access to safe drinking water that so many
Canadians take for granted."
In addition to an infrastructure commitment of at least $6 billion
to support reliable access to safe drinking water on reserves, the
settlement agreement includes $1.5 billion in compensation to
individuals deprived of clean drinking water, the creation of a
$400-million First Nation Economic and Cultural Restoration Fund
and the creation of a First Nations Advisory Committee on Safe
Drinking Water.
Curve Lake First Nation Chief Emily Whetung hasn't known clean
drinking water -- that didn't have to be boiled -- for most of her
lifetime.
The Dec. 22 decision is "monumental" and "is going to change so
many things," she said.
"It gives the agreement a legal enforceability that First Nations
have never had in the conversation about access to clean drinking
water," Whetung said.
"It didn't feel like a reality until I had the decision in my hand
and could say, 'Look. This is going to be something that's going to
be enforceable. This is going to be something that's going to
actually meaningfully change access to clean drinking water for
First Nations across Canada."
Rosenberg said the current water advisories will be lifted as soon
as possible.
"Some should be lifted in the coming weeks, months, and the hope is
that ultimately we close the infrastructure gap in these First
Nations communities so that we don't come back to a situation like
we see presently and have seen," he said.
There is a 60-day appeals period, but following that the next step
will be the implementation of the settlement.
Rosenberg said each First Nation in the settlement will have to
decide as a community whether or not they wish to participate in
the settlement, agree to it and accept its terms.
With files from Raffy Boudjikanian [GN]
CAPITAL ONE: Harper Class Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
NIQUAY HARPER and KRYSTLE GRANDERSON, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00800 (E.D. Va., Dec. 21, 2021) seeks to recover
compensation, overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of Sections 206, 207 and
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Virginia
common law.
The Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members are those similarly
situated persons who have worked for Capital One as hourly
call-center employees, anywhere the United States, at any time
during the relevant statutes of limitation through the final
disposition of this matter, and have not been paid for all hours
worked or the proper amount of overtime in violation of state and
federal law.
Allegedly, Capital One has enforced a uniform company-wide policy
wherein it improperly required (and continues to require) its
non-exempt hourly call-center employees -- Plaintiffs and the
Putative Class Members -- to perform work off-the-clock and without
pay.
Capital One's illegal company-wide policy has caused Plaintiffs and
the Putative Class Members to have hours worked that were not
compensated and further created a miscalculation of their regular
rate(s) of pay for purposes of calculating their overtime
compensation each workweek, the suit says.
Although Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members routinely worked
in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiffs and the Putative
Class Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half
their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, the suit adds.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
Craig J. Curwood, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Paul M. Falabella, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com
craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
paul@butlercurwood.com
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
CAPITAL ONE: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $190MM
--------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg News reports that Capital One Financial Corp. agreed to
pay $190 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that customers
filed against the firm after a hacker broke into its
cloud-computing systems and stole their personal information.
Representatives for those customers, Capital One and Amazon Web
Services -- the lender's cloud provider -- jointly asked Judge
Anthony Trenga to pause proceedings while the court evaluates the
agreement. The settlement will cover 98 million Americans, and
Capital One said it is fully reserved for the amount.
"While Capital One and AWS deny all liability, in the interest of
avoiding the time, expense and uncertainty of continued litigation,
plaintiffs and Capital One have executed a term sheet containing
the essential terms of a class settlement that, if approved by this
court, will fully resolve all claims brought by plaintiffs,"
according to a filing with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.
In July 2019, Capital One announced data from about 100 million
people in the U.S. was illegally accessed. Federal prosecutors
ultimately arrested Paige A. Thompson, a former Amazon cloud
employee, for breaking into the bank's server.
"The key facts in this case have not changed since we announced the
event in coordination with federal authorities more than two years
ago: the hacker was arrested and the stolen data was simultaneously
recovered before it could be disseminated or used for fraudulent
purposes," Capital One said in an emailed statement on Dec. 23. "We
are pleased to have reached an agreement that will resolve the
consumer class litigation in the U.S."
Capital One has remained one of the financial industry's earliest
and biggest proponents of cloud technology, and last year finished
exiting its data centers. The McLean, Virginia-based firm, which
also has been investing in cybersecurity, last year poached Andy
Ozment to become one its leading information-security executives.
[GN]
CAREWELL FAMILY: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carewell Family, Inc.
The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Carewell Family, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10998 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Carewell -- https://www.carewell.com/ -- is a family-run company
that provides advocacy for caregivers and an e-commerce site for
home health products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
Lake Success, NY 11042
Phone: (917) 957-0978
Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com
CENTRAL PAYMENT: Loses Bid to Decertify Class in Custom Hair Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska denied the
Defendant's motion to decertify the class in the lawsuit entitled
CUSTOM HAIR DESIGNS BY SANDY, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated; and SKIP'S PRECISION WELDING, LLC, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. CENTRAL PAYMENT CO., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:17CV310 (D.
Neb.).
A. Defendant's Motions:
1. With regard to the motion to continue trial, Filing No. 287, the
Court agrees with the Plaintiff that this case has been lingering
for over four years. The Plaintiff opposes the continuance, so long
as all motions are decided by January 18th, prior to the pretrial
conference. The Court intends to try this case as scheduled, absent
any priority criminal cases on its docket. The parties should
prepare for trial. It is time to move this case along. Filing No.
287 is denied.
2. The Defendant has filed to decertify this case, Filing No. 242.
The Defendant raises the same issues previously decided by the
Court with regard to class certification. The Court has again
reviewed this material, and the motion is again denied. The factual
issues discussed in the brief and the submitted evidence are issues
for trial. Filing No. 242 is denied.
3. In the motion for partial judgment, Filing No. 238, the
Defendant asks this Court to grant summary judgment as to certain
claims, including, fraud, RICO, and various other issues. After
reviewing the briefs for both sides, the Court is of the opinion
that there are significant and material facts that must be decided
at trial. The Court must hear and review the evidence as it is
submitted at trial. If, thereafter, the Defendant feels a motion is
appropriate, the Defendant is free to submit the same. The
Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, Filing No. 238, is
denied.
4. With regard to the motion to exclude the proposed testimony of
Steve W. Browne, Filing No. 227, filed by the Defendant, the
Defendant contends that pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms.,
Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 588 (1993) and its progeny, such testimony
should be excluded.
Specifically, the Defendant contends that Browne's reports should
be excluded for failure to comply with Rule 26; should be excluded
because it is inadmissible under Rule 702; should be excluded
because it is an inadmissible factual narrative; and should be
excluded as Browne is not qualified to offer an opinion regarding
the propriety of payment processing fees. The Defendant states that
Browne is a certified public accountant ("CPA"), a certified
information technology professional ("CITP"), a certified fraud
examiner ("CFE"), and a certified information systems auditor
("CISA"). He is also certified in financial forensics ("CFF") and
accredited in business valuation ("ABV"). He has served as an
expert witness for many years and has been retained by both public
and private entities. His firm, Meara Welch Browne, P.C., has
worked with and consulted for multiple businesses that accept
credit and debit card payments (as does every modern business in
the United States). However, he has never provided expert testimony
in a case related to payment processing. This case would be his
first.
However, thereafter, the Defendant argues against the methodology
used by Browne, as well as the numbers he uses to calculate his
resulting opinions, Senior District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon
notes.
Mr. Browne is a qualified expert, Judge Bataillon says. He has many
areas of expertise, most of which appear to be relevant to this
case. He is offering opinions connected to the evidence, and it
does not appear that he intends to testify via a "factual
narrative." Further, the Defendant has an expert on these issues.
The opinions will most likely be hotly contested by both sides.
That is a product of the trial process. It is not for this Court to
make advance decisions regarding factual issues. Such arguments go
to the weight of the testimony and not to its admissibility. That
is what the Defendant is asking this Court to do, Judge Bataillon
points out.
The Court will allow Mr. Browne's testimony. If, during the trial,
the Defendant determines that an objection is needed, the Defendant
is free to make the appropriate objection or motion, Judge
Bataillon holds. The Defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of
Mr. Browne, Filing No. 227, is denied.
B. Plaintiff's motions:
1. The Plaintiff files a motion for Partial Summary Judgment on
Defendant's Liability for Express Breach of Contract, Filing No.
232. Again, the Court after reviewing the briefs and evidence finds
this to be both a legal and factual issue. The Court must hear the
evidence presented at trial and see the context of the facts as
they relate to the contractual terms. If, after offering that
evidence, the Plaintiff still believes a motion is appropriate, it
may offer one at the appropriate time. Accordingly, Filing No. 232,
will be denied.
2. The Plaintiff's move to Exclude All Testimony of Patrick Moran
and Limited Testimony of Ian Ratner, Filing No. 234. The
conflicting but admissible views of different experts must
ultimately be decided, not by the Court, but by the trier of fact,
Judge Bataillon holds, citing Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526
U.S. 137, 147 (1999).
Judge Bataillon explains that these issues must be determined at
trial by vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary
evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof. It
appears that much of this testimony will be offered to challenge
the methodology of the Plaintiff's expert. This goes to weight and
credibility.
The Court will permit these two experts to testify, and if the
Plaintiff believes the testimony wanders from that which is
permissible, an appropriate objection can be made at that time. The
motion to exclude, Filing No. 234, is denied.
Therefore, it is ordered that the:
1. Motion to Exclude the Proposed Testimony of Steve W.
Browne, Filing No. 227, filed by the Defendant, is denied;
2. Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defendant's
Liability for Express Breach of Contract, Filing No. 232,
filed by the Plaintiffs, is denied;
3. Motion to Exclude All Testimony of Patrick Moran and
Limited Testimony of Ian Ratner, Filing No. 234, filed by
the Plaintiffs, is denied;
4. Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Filing No. 238, filed
by the Defendant, is denied;
5. Motion to Decertify the Class, Filing No. 242, filed by
the Defendant, is denied; and
6. Motion to continue trial, Filing No. 287, Filed by
the Defendant, is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 20,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yeyrdvj4 from
Leagle.com.
CENTURY LLC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Century, LLC. The
case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Century, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10735-JPC
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Century, LLC -- https://www.centurymartialarts.com/ -- manufactures
and distributes martial arts and fitness equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
Lake Success, NY 11042
Phone: (917) 957-0978
Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com
CHEGG INC: Faces Leventhal Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN LEVENTHAL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. CHEGG, INC., DANIEL L. ROSENSWEIG, ANDREW J.
BROWN, NATHAN SCHULTZ, JOHN P. FILLMORE and ROBIN TOMASELLO, Case
No. 5:21-cv-09953 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 22, 2021) is a securities fraud
class action on behalf of all purchasers of Chegg common stock
between May 5, 2020 and November 1, 2021, inclusive seeking
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Allegedly, the Defendants falsely touted that the Company was "in a
unique position to impact the future of the higher education
ecosystem" and that the primary cause of the Company's success was
"our strong brand and momentum" which would allow Chegg "to
continue to grow and take advantage of the ever-expanding
opportunities in the learner economy." In fact, defendants knew
that Chegg's increase in subscribers, growth, and revenue was a
temporary effect of the COVID-19 pandemic that resulted in remote
education for the vast majority of U.S. students.
The Defendants were also aware that the platform was helping
students cheat on their exams. Once the pandemic-related
restrictions eased and students returned to campuses nationwide and
schools and universities implemented protocols to eliminate
cheating, students predictably stopped subscribing to the platform.
In short, Chegg had no basis to believe that the extraordinary, but
temporary, growth trends would continue, but failed to adequately
inform investors of that reality, the suit says.
While Chegg's stock price was artificially inflated, several
officers and directors sold $95 million worth of stock -- far
exceeding the amount sold in the prior comparable period --
including $48 million by the Company's Co-Chairman, CEO and
President and $25 million by the Company's President of the
Learning Services division. Certain putative class members traded
contemporaneously with these defendants and were damaged thereby.
In addition, the Company took advantage of the artificially
inflated trading price of Chegg stock by selling more than $1
billion of common stock to investors in a February 18, 2021
secondary offering at the artificially inflated price of $102 per
share. Certain putative Class members purchased stock directly in
this secondary offering and have standing to assert additional
claims against the Company and the underwriters of that offering
pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933.
On November 1, 2021, Chegg revealed its financial results for the
first quarter in which students returned to campus across the
United States, and stunned investors with fewer-than-expected
enrollments and did not provide 2022 guidance. In fact, CEO and
President Dan Rosensweig admitted that defendants were aware of the
slowdown in September 2021.
Chegg's stock price plummeted nearly 50% (from over $62 to $32 per
share) on more than 45 times the average daily volume as investors
realized defendants' rosy statements about subscribers, growth, and
revenues had been misleading, which decline immediately erased
billions of dollars in market capitalization.
Mr. Leventhal purchased Chegg common stock during the Class Period
and has been damaged thereby.
Defendant Chegg is a provider of online research tools, online
tutoring services, digital and physical textbook rentals, and other
educational resources. Chegg and several of its senior insiders
made materially false and misleading statements during the Class
Period about the primary drivers of the Company's success
dramatically increasing subscribers, growth, and revenues. The
Individual Defendants are officers of the company.
Defendant Chegg operates a direct-to-student learning platform that
supports students on their journey from high school to college and
into their career with tools designed to help them to learn their
course materials, succeed in their classes, and save money on
required materials. The Company offers Chegg Services, which
include subscription services; and required materials that comprise
its print textbooks and eTextbooks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-0063
Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
E-mail: FrankJ@johnsonfistel.com
CHEGG INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of February 22 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Law Firm Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP Chegg, Inc. notify
investors that a securities class proceeding has been filed against
("Chegg") ("Chegg")NYSE: CHGG). The proceedings indict Chegg for
violating federal securities law, including omissions and
fraudulent misrepresentations related to the company's business,
operations, and outlook. Chegg investors suffered significant
losses as a result of virtually misleading statements to the masses
of Chegg.
Plaintiff's deadline: February 22, 2022
Class period: May 5, 2020 finished November 1, 2021
Contact a lawyer to discuss your rights:
James Malo, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Call charges are free (844)
887-9500 or email info@ktmc.com
Cheggs Alleged misconduct
Chegg operates a learning platform for students. Chegg's services
include a subscription service and the necessary materials to
configure print textbooks and eTextbooks.
In the complaint, the defendant advertised that the chegg is "in a
unique position to influence the future of the higher education
ecosystem" throughout the lesson, and the main reason for the
success of the chegg is the "strong" that enables the chegg. It
claims to have been "brand and momentum." "Take advantage of
opportunities to continue to grow and expand in the learner
economy."
The truth was revealed to November 1, 2021When Chegg reported
financial results that revealed less registration than expected,
while failing to provide guidance for 2022. CEO in addressing these
concerns Dan Rosen's Wage "Variations, increased employment
opportunities, a combination of rewards, and a feeling of fatigue
have significantly reduced the number of enrollments than expected
this semester, and enrolled students are taking less stringent
classes and grades. We are receiving low challenges." Following
this news, Chegg's stock plummeted by nearly 50%. November 2,
2021.
February 22, 2022 is the deadline for the main plaintiff's
representative of the class to be appointed through Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, or you may choose to remain a member of
another lawyer, or a class that was absent without doing anything.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP Chegg investors who have
suffered significant losses are encouraged to contact the company
directly for more information.
Who can be the primary plaintiff?
The plaintiff chief is the representative party acting on behalf of
all class members in conducting proceedings. The main plaintiff is
usually an investor or a small group of investors who have the
greatest financial benefit and are appropriate and typical for the
proposed class of investors. The Chief Plaintiff selects the Chief
Plaintiff and the attorneys representing the class, who, if
approved by the court, are the Chief or Class attorneys. The
ability to share recovery is unaffected by the decision to act as
the main plaintiff.
About KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts nationwide and around the world. The
company has built a global reputation for excellence and has
recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and other
corporate fraud. All of our work is driven by the common goal of
protecting investors, consumers, employees and others from fraud,
abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and trustees. After
all, if the bad guys paid and recovered their assets, we were
successful. The proceedings in this proceeding were not filed by
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP visit www.ktmc.com. [GN]
CHERYL A. LARABEE: Bourgeois Files Suit in Del. Chancery. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cheryl A. Larabee, et
al. The case is styled as Herman Bourgeois, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, v. Cheryl A. Larabee, Chris
Ahern, Daniel R. Maurer, Edward Terino, Michael T. Birch, P. Scott
Stubbs, Ronald G. Garriques, Tayloir Smith, Case No. 2021-1107-LWW
(Del. Chancery. Ct., Dec. 22, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."
Cheryl A. Larabee is currently chairman of the board of ZAGG,
Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake Bennett, Esq.
COOCH & TAYLOR PA-WILMINGTON
1000 W St 10th Fl
Wilmington, DE 19899
Phone: (302) 984-3889
Fax: (302) 984-3939
Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com
CHINA: Grant of Aharon's Bid to Continue Service Efforts Endorsed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MORIAH AHARON, et al., Plaintiffs v.
CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY, et al., Defendants, Case No.
20-CV-80604-ALTMAN/REINHART (S.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Bruce
Reinhart of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the
Plaintiffs' motion to continue service efforts be granted.
On April 8, 2020, the Plaintiffs brought the class action lawsuit
on behalf of front-line medical workers in the United States
against the Chinese Communist Party and the People's Republic of
China. The Complaint alleged that the Defendants knew about the
dangers of COVID-19 but failed to contain the virus and actively
sought to conceal its dangers. The Plaintiffs contend that they
suffered damages caused by the Defendants' hoarding and stockpiling
of Personal Protective Equipment ("PPE"), and their prohibition on
factories located in China, including those owned by U.S.
corporations, from exporting PPE to the United States.
The Plaintiffs were unsuccessful in effectuating service on the
Defendants. On July 6, 2020, the Honorable Roy K. Altman
administratively closed the case but permitted the Plaintiffs to
file an amended complaint and ordered that service be perfected by
Oct. 5, 2020. Judge Altman ordered the Plaintiffs to file monthly
status reports regarding their service efforts.
The following day, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint,
adding a new defendant, PetroChina International (America), Inc.,
an American-based subsidiary of China-state owned PetroChina
International Co., Ltd. PetroChina was served and their attorneys
filed notices of appearance, however, PetroChina was relieved from
responding to the Amended Complaint until the international
Defendants were served. The Plaintiffs continued to file their
monthly status reports explaining their inability to serve the
international Defendants.
On June 7, 2021, Judge Altman denied the Plaintiff's motion to
reopen the case. Judge Altman rejected the Plaintiffs' request in
their reply papers to proceed under the remaining steps available
in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) (28 U.S.C. Section
1608(a)(4)), finding that the request must be made by separate
motion after conferral with PetroChina.
On July 9, 2021, in accordance with Judge Altman's order, the
Plaintiffs filed the instant motion seeking permission to effect
service on the international Defendants via the U.S. Department of
State ("State Department") by diplomatic channels (28 U.S.C.
Section 1608(a)(4)). On Nov. 23, 2021, Judge Altman referred this
motion to Judge Reinhart for a report and recommendation.
According to the Plaintiffs, the Amended Complaint and summonses
have already been translated into Chinese in accordance with State
Department requirements. Although the Clerk of the Court will need
to issue new 60-day summonses, the Plaintiffs contend that the
information on them will remain the same as before, and thus the
translations can be "quickly" copied. They further state that they
are already working with a service vendor, known and recommended
for their experience in completing service through the State
Department, to prepare all of the documentation and fees so that
the process can start immediately upon the order of the Court
directing them to proceed.
The Plaintiffs further represent that they have conferred with
counsel for PetroChina America, who take no position with respect
to the relief requested.
Having reviewed the motions and monthly status reports filed by the
Plaintiffs, Judge Reinhart finds that they have acted diligently in
this matter and should be permitted to pursue service on the
international Defendants with the assistance of the State
Department in accordance with step four of the FSIA. It appears
that continued diligent efforts should resolve this service issue
within a few months.
Recommendation
The Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue Service Efforts should be
granted. The Clerk of the Court should issue new summonses, which
the Plaintiffs will have immediately translated into Chinese. The
Plaintiffs should be permitted to contact the U.S. Department of
State directly to effect service on the international Defendants.
The Plaintiffs should be ordered to continue filing monthly status
reports regarding the progress of service.
Notice of Right to Object
A party will serve and file written objections, if any, to this
Report and Recommendation with the Honorable Roy K. Altman, United
States District Court Judge for the Southern District of Florida,
within fourteen (14) DAYS of being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation. Failure to timely file objections shall
constitute a waiver of a party's "right to challenge on appeal the
district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal
conclusions," 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016).
If counsel do not intend to file objections, they will file a
notice advising the District Court within five days of this Report
and Recommendation.
A full-text copy of the Court's Report and Recommendation dated
Dec. 20, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4mbafbyp from
Leagle.com.
CIRCLE K: Filing of Class Status Bid Continued to Feb. 17, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM D. PETTERSEN, v.
CIRCLE K STORES INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00237-H-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Bernard G. Skomal entered an order granting joint motion
to modify the deadline for class certification as follows.
-- The deadline for filing a motion for class certification is
continued from January 18, 2022 until February 17, 2022.
-- All other dates and deadlines set forth the Court's
Scheduling Order remain in effect.
Circle K is an international chain of convenience stores, owned by
the Canadian multinational Alimentation Couche-Tard.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EIqu08 at no extra charge.[CC]
CLAYA INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Claya, Inc. The case
is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Claya, Inc. doing business as:
Rootine, Case No. 1:21-cv-07064-DG-MMH (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Claya, Inc. doing business as Rootine -- https://rootine.co/ -- is
optimizing health and human performance with precision
nutrition.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
CLOOPEN GROUP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 8 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Cloopen Group Holding Limited ("Cloopen" or the
"Company") (NYSE: RAAS) in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Cloopen securities between
February 9, 2021 and May 10, 2021, both dates included, (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until February 8, 2022 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Cloopen claims to be the largest multi-capability cloud-based
communications solution provider in China. In its February 2021
United States IPO, Cloopen sold 23 million ADSs (including the full
exercise of the underwriter defendants' over-allotment option) at
$16 per ADS, netting approximately $342 million in proceeds from
the offering.
The Cloopen class action lawsuit alleges that the Registration
Statement led Cloopen ADS purchasers to believe that Cloopen's
much-touted growth strategy, which relied upon cross-selling,
up-selling, optimizing existing solutions, and developing new
features, was effective. Indeed, as portrayed in the Registration
Statement, Cloopen appeared to be retaining and even expanding its
customer base, as well as maintaining its key sales metrics such as
dollar-based net retention rate, which reflected its ability to
increase existing customer revenue. Yet, Cloopen's representations
concerning its successful growth strategy were materially false and
misleading. In fact, as the Cloopen class action lawsuit alleges,
Cloopen's growth strategy was not working and its existing
customers were abandoning the company. The Cloopen class action
lawsuit further alleges that Cloopen's Registration Statement
failed to disclose that an increasing number of its customers were
refusing to pay, forcing Cloopen to record massive increases in its
accounts receivables and allowance for doubtful accounts. The
Registration Statement also allegedly failed to disclose that
Cloopen was weighted down by massive liabilities related to the
fair value of certain recently-granted warrants.
On March 26, 2021, just over six weeks after its IPO, Cloopen
reported fourth quarter of 2020 revenues of just $39.6 million - $2
million shy of analysts' consensus - net losses of $46.8 million,
representing a 466.9% increase year-over-year, and operating
expenses of $27.6 million, representing a 30% increase over fourth
quarter of 2019. Cloopen blamed a "change in fair value of warrant
liabilities of . . . $34.4 million" for Cloopen's remarkable net
loss and "an increase in the provision for doubtful accounts
resulting from increased in accounts receivables" for the 59.2%
increase in general and administrative expenses. On this news, the
price of Cloopen's ADSs fell by more than 18%.
Weeks later, as Cloopen belatedly revealed additional facts about
its failed growth strategy and withering customer base, including
that its dollar-based net retention rate by year end 2020 fell far
below historical periods, Cloopen's share price fell again.
At the time the Cloopen class action lawsuit was commenced,
Cloopen's share price has dropped as low as $2.70 per ADS, a
decline of more than 80% from the $16 IPO price.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Cloopen shares and suffered
a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Alexandra Raymond by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
CMC MATERIALS: Juan Monteverde Investigates Securities Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the firm
Monteverde & Associates PC ("M&A Class Action Firm"), a national
securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State
Building in New York City, is investigating CMC Materials, Inc.
(NASDAQ:CCMP), relating to its merger with Entegris, Inc. Under the
terms of the agreement, CCMP shareholders will receive 0.4506
shares of Entegris and $133.00 in cash per share they own.
The investigation focuses on whether CMC Materials, Inc. and its
Board of Directors violated securities laws and/or breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company by 1) failing to conduct a fair
process, and 2) whether the transaction is properly valued.
Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/cmc-materials-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities
litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is
committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. It
is listed in the Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Report. Our lawyers have significant experience
litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr.
Monteverde is recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in
Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less
than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been
selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our
firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant
victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e)
of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen
cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class
action cases.
If you owned common stock in the Company and wish to obtain
additional information and protect your investments free of charge,
please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either
via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at
(212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341
Attorney Advertising. (C) 2021 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
COCA-COLA: Barnes Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coca-Cola Business
Services North America, LLC. The case is styled as Elversa Barnes,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v.
Coca-Cola Business Services North America, LLC, Case No.
4:21-cv-00553-TCK-SH (N.D. Okla., Dec. 21, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Coca-Cola Company -- https://www.coca-colacompany.com/ -- is an
American multinational beverage corporation incorporated under
Delaware's General Corporation Law and headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Jason Hartwig, Esq.
TISDAL & O'HARA, PLLC
13808 Wireless Way
Oklahoma City, OK 73134
Phone: (405) 471-5226
Email: jhartwig@tisdalohara.com
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Class Status Hearing in Willis Rescheduled
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON WILLIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO. Case No. 2:19-cv-08542-JGB-RAO (C.D. Cal, the
Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order rescheduling hearing on
plaintiff's motion for class certification and defendant's motions
to exclude plaintiff's expert witnesses and evidence as follows:
-- The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification
and Colgate's motions to exclude Plaintiff's expert
witnesses and evidence shall be continued from December
20, 2021 to January 24, 2022 at 9:00 a.m.
Colgate-Palmolive is an American multinational consumer products
company headquartered on Park Avenue in Midtown Manhattan, New York
City. It specializes in the production, distribution and provision
of household, health care, personal care and veterinary products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qxaSaT at no extra charge.[CC]
COLLEGE TOWN: Mainville Seeks Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Mainville, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. College Town Pizza, Inc.; Route 41 Pizza, LLC; 5 Star Pizza,
LLC; Two Ten Twenty Pizza, Inc.; Dough Management Inc.; Susan
Graves; Dave Randall; Dennis Denman; Doe Corporation 1-10; John Doe
1-10, Case No. 0:21-cv-02699 (D. Minn., Dec. 20, 2021) seeks
appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on
Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and
similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin wage and hour laws,
and for unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent the delivery drivers who have
worked at the Team Honey Badger stores.
The Defendants operate 178 Domino's Pizza locations in Wisconsin,
Minnesota, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, South
Dakota, North Dakota, and Iowa (the "Team Honey Badger
stores").[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter G. Christian, Esq.
Timothy S. Christensen, Esq.
SCHAEFER HALLEEN, LLC
412 South 4th Street, Suite 1050
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Telephone: (612) 294-2600
Facsimile: (612) 294-2640
E-mail: pchristian@schaeferhalleen.com
tchristensen@schaeferhalleen.com
- and -
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Emily A. Hubbard, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Telephone: (513) 715-8711
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
ehubbard@billerkimble.com
COMMUNITY MEDICAL: Miranda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Medical
Centers, Inc. The case is styled as Aholiva Justiniano Miranda, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Community
Medical Centers, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UCC-2021-0011353 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 17, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Complaint - Other."
Community Medical Centers -- https://www.communitymedical.org/ --
is a private, not-for-profit healthcare network based in Fresno,
California.[BN]
CONSTANT FORCE: Timothy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Constant Force LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Charles Timothy, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Constant Force LLC, Seko
Worldwide, LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company, Does 1-50,
Case No. 34-2021-00313080-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty., Dec. 21, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."
Constant Force LLC -- http://constantforce.com/-- is a premier
logistics provider in Northern California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310-975-1493
Fax: 310-300-1705
CONTAINMENT SOLUTIONS: Floyd Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Containment Solutions
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Darrick Floyd, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated
v. Containment Solutions Services, Inc., Containment Solutions,
Inc., National Oilwell Varco, L.P., Case No. BCV-21-102972 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Dec. 22, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Containment Solutions -- http://containmentsolutions.com/--
manufactures, sells, and installs storage and handling products for
hazardous and non-hazardous fluids.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
Phone: 858-551-1223
Fax: 858-551-1232
Email: norm@bamlawca.com
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Everett Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Frank Everett,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
1:21-cv-07020 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Convergent -- https://www.convergentusa.com/outsourcing/ -- is one
of America's leading collections agencies since 1950.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
CREATIVE HAIRDRESSERS: Olsen Files Suit in D. Maryland
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Creative
Hairdressers, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nicole Olsen, and
a class of similarly situated individuals, Appellant v. Creative
Hairdressers, Inc., Ratner Companies, L.C., Appellees, Case No.
8:21-cv-03289-TDC (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated Bankruptcy Appeal (801).
Creative Hairdressers, Inc. provides beauty services. The Company
offers haircuts, shampoos, perms, styling services, facial wax, and
various hair products.[BN]
The Appellant is represented by:
Ronald Jay Drescher, Esq.
DRESCHER AND ASSOCIATES PA
4 Reservoir Cir Ste 107
Baltimore, MD 21208
Phone: (410) 484-9000
Fax: (410) 484-8120
Email: rondrescher@drescherlaw.com
The Appellees are represented by:
Joel I. Sher, Esq.
SHAPITO SHER GUINOT & SANDLER
250 W. Pratt Street, Suite 2000
Baltimore, MD 21201
Phone: (410) 385-0202
Fax: (410) 539-7611
Email: jis@shapirosher.com
CRESTWOOD BEHAVIORAL: Navarro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crestwood Behavioral
Health Inc., et al. The case is styled as Brigit Navarro, and on
behalf of all similarly situated v. Crestwood Behavioral Health
Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Helios Healthcare, LLC, Does 1-100,
Case No. 34-2021-00312914-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty., Dec. 17, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."
Crestwood Behavioral Health Inc. --
https://crestwoodbehavioralhealth.com/ -- is proud to be
California's leading provider of mental health services, assisting
thousands of clients from across the state.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243
Phone: (310) 438-5555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
DAVID SHINN: Court OKs Parties' Bid to Stay Class Cert. Deadlines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stacy Satzsman, et al., v.
David Shinn, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02402-SPL-JFM (D. Ariz.), the
Hon. Judge James F. Metcalf entered an order:
1. granting the Parties' joint motion to stay;
2. staying all discovery, class certification, and
dispositive motion deadlines, including kitchen
inspections at three Arizona Department of Corrections,
Rehabilitation and Reentry (ADCRR) prison complexes to be
conducted by Plaintiffs' counsel and their religious
expert through January 31, 2022; and
3. directing the Parties to participate in an informal
exchange of information as set forth in the Motion.
The Court had previously granted a 90 day stay of discovery and
stayed various deadlines to permit the parties to exchange
information and workout their disagreement over ADCRR's Common Fare
Meal provided as a vegan, kosher diet. The parties were required to
report on the status of the matter, which they did on December 7,
2021. The parties now again assert that the new Common Fare Kosher
Meat Meal plan has been implemented, and additional time is
required for evaluation and exchanges of information. They request
a continued stay through January 31, 2022, the Court says.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zdtII6 at no extra charge.[CC]
DEL TACO: Lifshitz Law Probes Firm for Possible Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. (NASADAQCM: TACO)
Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. announces investigation into possible
breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the sale of TACO to
Jack in the Box Inc. for $12.51 in cash per share of TACO owned.
If you are an investor, and would like additional information about
our investigation, please complete the Information Request Form or
contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780 or
e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING.(c) 2021 Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C., 1190
Broadway, Hewlett, New York 11557, Tel: (516)493-9780. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. [GN]
DELAWARE, OH: Class Certification Bid Extended to Feb. 25, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Seattle House LLC v. City
of Delaware, Ohio, Case No. 2:20-cv-03284 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered an order:
1. The time for class certification motion is extended to
Feb. 25, 2022.
2. Discovery Related to Class Allegations is due by Jan. 26,
2022.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Housing Act involving civil
rights -- Housing/Accommodations.[CC]
DEMANDBASE INC: Gbeintor Files Suit in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Demandbase, Inc. The
case is styled as Amos Gbeintor, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Demandbase, Inc., InsideView
Technologies, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-09470-KAW (N.D. Cal., Dec. 7,
2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Demandbase -- http://www.demandbase.com/-- is a targeting and
personalization platform for business-to-business companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Francis Ram, Esq.
Marie Noel Appel, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: (415) 358-6913
Fax: (415) 358-6923
Email: mram@forthepeople.com
mappel@forthepeople.com
- and -
Benjamin Ross Osborn, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN R. OSBORN
102 Bergen Street, Apt. 4
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (347) 645-0464
Email: ben@benosbornlaw.com
- and -
Raina Challeen Borrelli, Esq.
Samuel Joseph Strauss
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703-3515
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Fax: (608) 509-4423
Email: raina@turkestrauss.com
sam@turkestrauss.com
DENKA PERFORMANCE: DuPont Dismissed with Prejudice in Butler Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUANEA L. BUTLER,
individually and as representative of all others similarly
situated, v. DENKA PERFORMANCE ELASTOMER, LLC, ET AL., Case No.
2:18-cv-06685-MLCF-KWR (E.D. La.), the Court entered an order
granting the defendant DuPont Performance Elastomers' motion to
dismiss and dismissing DuPont with prejudice.
The Court said, "The Plaintiff's counsel has done her and this
Court a disservice. He has declined to reckon with binding law
established by the Fifth Circuit in this very case. He has declined
to reckon with this Court's rulings on nearly identical motions in
this very case. And he continues to advance claims that he ought to
know are foreclosed.
Finally, he does this while calling out the other side for making
"baseless" claims. The plaintiff in this case has failed to state a
claim against DuPont upon which relief can be granted. The
plaintiff's case has been hindered, not advanced, by her counsel.
The Court has no choice but to dismiss the claims against DuPont
with prejudice.
This environmental tort litigation arises from the production of
neoprene at the Pontchartrain Works Facility ("PWF") in St. John
the Baptist Parish. Neoprene production allegedly exposes those
living in the vicinity of the PWF to concentrated levels of
chloroprene above the upper limit of acceptable risk and allegedly
may result in a risk of cancer more than 800 times the national
average.
Juanea L. Butler has lived in LaPlace, Louisiana since 1998. She
sued the Louisiana Department of Health, the Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality, Denka Performance Elastomer LLC, and E.I.
DuPont de Nemours and Company seeking class certification, damages,
and injunctive relief in the form of abatement of chloroprene
releases from her industrial neighbor, the PWF.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HzPhWr at no extra charge.[CC]
DHC SUPPLY: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DHC Supply, LLC. The
case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DHC Supply, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-10790 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
DHC Supplies, Inc. -- https://www.dhcsupplies.com/ -- is specialty
construction supplies serving Northern California and Nevada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
DISCOVERY INC: Finger Balks at Merger Deal With WarnerMedia
-----------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE FINGER v. DISCOVERY, INC., ROBERT R. BECK, ROBERT L.
JOHNSON, J. DAVID WARGO, ROBERT J. MIRON, STEVEN A. MIRON, SUSAN M.
SWAIN, PAUL A. GOULD, KENNETH W. LOWE, DANIEL E. SANCHEZ, ROBERT R.
BENNETT, JOHN C. MALONE, and DAVID M. ZASLAV, Case No.
2:21-cv-09799 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 20, 2021) is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging that the
Discovery and the members of Discovery's Board of Directors
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC).
The Plaintiff seeks to to enjoin the vote on a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which : (i) Discovery will be merged with
the WarnerMedia segment of AT&T Inc. through AT&T's subsidiary
Magallanes, Inc. and Discovery's subsidiary Drake Subsidiary, Inc.
and (ii) the combined company will be renamed Warner Bros.
Discovery, Inc. (Proposed Transaction).
On May 17, 2021, Discovery and AT&T issued a joint press release
announcing that they had entered into a series of definitive
transaction agreements, including an Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated May 17, 2021 and a Separation and Distribution Agreement,
dated May 17, 2021, pursuant to which AT&T will separate and
transfer WarnerMedia Business to Spinco, which will continue as a
wholly owned subsidiary of WBD. Under the terms of the agreements,
existing shareholders of Discovery will own approximately 29% of
the outstanding shares of WBD on a fully diluted basis.
On November 18, 2021, Discovery filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the SEC. The Registration Statement, which
recommends that Discovery stockholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction, allegedly omits or misrepresents material
information concerning the financial projections for Discovery and
the WarnerMedia Business after giving effect to the Proposed
Transaction.
In short, unless remedied, Discovery's public stockholders will be
irreparably harmed because the Registration Statement's material
misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a
sufficiently informed voting decision on the Proposed Transaction,
says the suit.
Discovery is a global media company that provides content across
multiple distribution platforms, including linear platforms such as
pay-television ("pay-TV"), free-to-air and broadcast television,
authenticated GO applications, digital distribution arrangements,
content licensing arrangements and next generation
direct-to-consumer ("DTC") subscription products, including
discovery, the definitive real-life subscription service. The
Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
611 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 808
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com
DISCOVERY NATURAL: Delaughter Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE DELAUGHTER Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DISCOVERY NATURAL RESOURCES, LLC, Case No.
7:21-cv-00243 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 17, 2021) is a collective action
complaint seeking to recover overtime compensation and all other
available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
Discovery Natural Resources, LLC was formerly the employer of
Plaintiff and others similarly situated. The Plaintiff worked as a
drilling consultant for Discovery from June 2019 until October
2019.
While employed by Discovery, the Plaintiff was allegedly
misclassified as an independent contractor, despite the fact that
he worked full time for Discovery, and virtually every aspect of
his job was controlled by Discovery. Discovery misclassified
Plaintiff as an independent contractor to avoid paying employment
taxes, benefits and overtime.
During his time with Discovery, the Plaintiff typically worked
approximately 100 hours per week. The Plaintiff received a day rate
regardless of the number of hours he worked in a given day or week,
and never received overtime pay.
The class of similarly situated employees sought to be certified as
a collective action under the FLSA is defined as:
"anyone who worked for discovery as a drilling consultant,
drilling supervisor, company man, or well site manager during
the past 3 years who was classified as an independent contractor
and paid a day-rate (the "class members").
Discovery is an oil and gas production company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Borsellino, Esq.
BORSELLINO, P.C.
1020 Macon St., Suite 15
Fort Worth, TX 76102
3267 Bee Cave Rd., Ste. 107
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (817) 908-9861
Facsimile: (817) 394-2412
E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com
DOCUSIGN INC: Faces Collins Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN D. COLLINS, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DOCUSIGN, INC., DANIEL D. SPRINGER, MICHAEL
J. SHERIDAN, and CYNTHIA GAYLOR, Case No. 1:21-cv-07071 (E.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 22, 2021) is a federal securities class action on behalf of
all persons and entities who purchased the publicly traded
securities of DocuSign between March 27, 2020 and December 2, 2021,
both dates inclusive seeking to recover compensable damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On March 27, 2020, DocuSign filed a Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended January 31, 2020. Attached to the 2020 10-K were
certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX")
signed by Defendants Springer and Sheridan attesting to the
accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material
changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting
and the disclosure of all fraud. The 2020 10-K listed among its
Risk Factors the potential harm the then-new Covid-19 pandemic
could have on the Company's business.
On June 4, 2020, DocuSign held an earnings conference call for its
first quarter fiscal 2021 ("1Q 2021 Earnings Call"). During the 1Q
2021 Earnings Call, Defendant Springer said, in relevant part: "The
COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally shifted the global
macroeconomic environment and impacted countless lives around the
world.
Also on December 2, 2021, DocuSign published a press release
announcing its third-quarter fiscal year 2022 financial results and
guidance for the fourth-quarter fiscal year 2022. The guidance
provided, in pertinent part, midpoint revenue guidance of $560
million, missing analysts' consensus estimates of $573.8 million.
The guidance also provided a billing guidance of $653 million,
missing consensus estimates of $705.4 million.
On this news, DocuSign's stock price plummeted $98.73 per share, or
over 42%, to close at $135.09 per share on December 3, 2021,
damaging investors. 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.
The Plaintiff purchased DocuSign's securities during the Class
Period and was economically damaged thereby.
Defendant DocuSign purportedly offers the Agreement Cloud, a broad
cloud-based software suite that enables users to automate the
agreement process and provide legally binding e-signatures from
nearly any device. The Company is incorporated in Delaware with its
principal executive offices located at 221 Main St., Suite 1550,
San Francisco, CA 94105. The Company's securities are traded on
NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "DOCU." The Individual Defendants
are officers of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
DOCUSIGN INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of February 22 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs
investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed
against in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York against DocuSign, Inc. ("DocuSign") (NASDAQ:
DOCU). The action charges DocuSign with violations of the federal
securities laws, including omissions and fraudulent
misrepresentations relating to the company's business, operations,
and prospects. As a result of DocuSign's materially misleading
statements to the public, DocuSign investors have suffered
significant losses.
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: February 22, 2022
CLASS PERIOD: March 27, 2020 through December 2, 2021
CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:
James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Toll Free (844) 887-9500 or
Email at info@ktmc.com
DOCUSIGN'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
DocuSign provides cloud based software in the United States and
internationally. Specifically, DocuSign offers e-signature
solutions that enables businesses to digitally prepare, sign, act
on, and manage agreements.
Beginning on March 27, 2020 and throughout the Class Period,
DocuSign touted its growth and continued strong demand. As recently
as September 2, 2021 earnings call, DocuSign touted its billings
and revenue growth, including, among other things, assuring
investors that the company continued to see strong early renewals
and expansions of existing customers that DocuSign had visibility
into and tracked, and that DocuSign did not see significant
slowdown in its business.
Then, on December 2, 2021, after the market closed, DocuSign
announced that it sustained a significant deceleration in billings
growth and disappointing year-end projections for billings and
revenue. According to DocuSign, "After six quarters of accelerated
growth, [DocuSign] saw customers return to more normalized buying
patterns, resulting in 28% year-over-year billings growth."
Following this news, DocuSign's stock price fell $98.73 per share,
or 42%, to close at $135.09 per share on December 3, 2021.
WHAT CAN I DO?
DocuSign investors may, no later than February 22, 2022, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages DocuSign investors who have
suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire
more information.
WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?
A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.
ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. At the end of the day, we have succeeded if the bad
guys pay up, and if you recover your assets. The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]
DOCUSIGN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of February 22 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP (PRNewsfoto/Levi & Korsinsky, LLP)
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Docusign, Inc. ("Docusign" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
DOCU) and/or sold Desktop Metal put options between March 27, 2020
and December 2, 2021. You are hereby notified that a securities
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. To get more
information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/docusign-inc-loss-submission-form
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.
Docusign, Inc. NEWS - DOCU NEWS
CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (1) the impact of
the Covid-19 pandemic on DocuSign's business was positive, not
negative; (2) DocuSign misrepresented the role that the Covid-19
pandemic had on its growth; (3) DocuSign downplayed the impact that
a 'return to normal' would have on the Company's growth and
business; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Docusign
you have until February 22, 2022 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 Docusign securities between March
27. 2020 and December 2, 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/docusign-inc-loss-submission-form 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 70 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]
DOTFIT LLC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dotfit, LLC. The case
is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Dotfit, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-10806-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
DotFIT -- https://www.dotfit.com/ -- offers research-based
nutrition programs and dietary supplements support your weight
lifting, recovery, nutrition, and sport performance goals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
DR. SCHAR USA: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dr. Schar USA, Inc.
The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Dr. Schar USA, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10984 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dr. Schar -- https://www.drschaer.com/ -- is a manufacturer of
gluten-free foods that is headquartered in Lyndhurst, New
Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
Lake Success, NY 11042
Phone: (917) 957-0978
Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com
DR. SHRINK: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dr. Shrink, Inc. The
case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Dr. Shrink, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10804 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dr. Shrink -- https://dr-shrink.com/ -- is the global leader in
shrink wrap, and it doesn't stop at just the products to make it
possible.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
DRACO DISTRIBUTION: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Draco Distribution,
Inc. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Draco Distribution,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10974 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Draco Distribution is a retail company in Los Angeles,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
DRIVE NEW JERSEY: Petri Files Suit in D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Drive New Jersey
Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Kristin Petri,
Sherdon Green, themselves and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Drive New Jersey Insurance Company, Progressive Garden
State Insurance Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-20510 (D.N.J., Dec. 15,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mineral Fusion -- https://www.mineralfusion.com/ -- offers a
variety of natural beauty products powered by minerals.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rachel Nicole Edelsberg, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
3331 Sunset Avenue
Ocean, NJ 07712
Phone: (305) 610-5223
Email: rachel@dapeer.com
EDUCATIONAL TESTING: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Educational Testing
Service. The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Educational Testing
Service, Case No. 1:21-cv-10789 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Educational Testing Service -- https://www.ets.org/ -- founded in
1947, is the world's largest private nonprofit educational testing
and assessment organization.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
EDWARD R. MARSZAL: James Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edward R. Marszal
Enterprises Inc, et al. The case is styled as Lakreshae James, on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Edward R. Marszal
Enterprises Inc., a California corporation, Does 1 through 50, Case
No. 34-2021-00313157-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.,
Dec. 23, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Edward R. Marszal Enterprises Inc. -- http://www.circlek.com/-- is
located in Elk Grove, California and is part of the Gasoline
Stations Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
515 S Figueroa St. Ste. 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
Phone: 213-488-6555
Fax: 213-488-6554
Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
ELEMENTS PRODUCTION: Raus Files Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elements Production,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as David Raus, Yessica Navarro, Moya
Ferenchak, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Elements Production, LLC, a New York Limited Liability
Company; BangOn!NYC; Brett Herman, Timothy Monkiewicz, individuals;
Tested Contained Retreats, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company; Case No. 1:21-cv-10431-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Personal Property.
ELEMENT Productions -- https://element.cc/ -- is a full-service
production and post-company creating content for distribution
across all media platforms.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Eric Lust, Esq.
GERAGOS & GERAGOS
256 5th Avenue, Ste. 4th Floor
New York, NY 10061
Phone: (914) 589-4642
Email: lust@geragos.com
ESSENDANT CO: Ochoa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Essendant, Co. The
case is styled as Fernando Ochoa, on behalf of himself an all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v.
Essendant, Co., Case No. BCV-21-102962 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty.,
Dec. 21, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Essendant -- https://www.essendant.com/ -- formerly known as United
Stationers, is a national wholesale distributor of office
supplies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Otkupman, Esq.
OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC
28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203
Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015
Phone: (818) 293-5623
Fax: (888) 850-1310
Email: roman@OLFLA.com
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Crews Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Mckay Crews,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 8:21-cv-02103 (C.D.
Cal., Dec. 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.experian.com/
-- operates as an information services company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (323) 979-2063
Fax: (323) 488-6748
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
FAITHLIFE LLC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Faithlife, LLC. The
case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Faithlife, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10994
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Faithlife -- https://faithlife.com/ -- publishes and creates
electronic tools and resources for Bible study.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
Lake Success, NY 11042
Phone: (917) 957-0978
Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com
FARADAY FUTURE: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Dec. 24 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California captioned Zhou v.
Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc., et al., (Case No.
21-cv-9914) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc.
("Faraday" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FFIE) f/k/a Property
Solutions Acquisition Corp. ("PSAC") securities between January 28,
2021 and November 15, 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 December
24, 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 Faraday 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
www.glancylaw.com/cases/faraday-future-intelligent-electric-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 October 7, 2021, J Capital Research published a report alleging,
among other things, that Faraday Future was unlikely to ever sell a
car, noting that after eight years in business, the Company has
"failed to deliver a car," "has reneged on promises to build
factories in five localities in the U.S. and China," "is being sued
by dozens of unpaid suppliers," and "has failed to disclose that
assets in China have been frozen by courts." Moreover, the report
alleged that Faraday Future's claimed 14,000 deposits are
fabricated because 78% of these reservations were made by a single
undisclosed company that is likely an affiliate. The report further
alleges that contrary to representations of progress toward
manufacturing made by Faraday Future in September 2021, former
engineering executives did not believe that the car was ready for
production.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.35 per share, or
more than 4%, to close at $8.05 per share on October 8, 2021.
On November 15, 2021, Faraday Future announced that it would be
unable to file its Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September
30, 2021 on time. Faraday Future further announced that its board
of directors "formed a special committee of independent directors
to review allegations of inaccurate disclosures," including the
claims in the J Capital report.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.28 per share, or
approximately 3%, to close at $8.83 per share on November 16,
2021.
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 the Company had assets in China frozen by
courts, (2) that a significant percentage of its deposits for
future deliveries were attributable to a single undisclosed
affiliate; (3) that the Company's cars were not as close to
production as the Company claimed; (4) that, as a result of
previously issued statements that were misleading and/or
inaccurate, Faraday Future could not timely file its quarterly
report; 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 Faraday securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
December 24, 2021, the date of 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]
FARADAY FUTURE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of February 22 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. F/K/A
Property Solutions Acquisition Corp. ("Faraday Future" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: FFIE) and/or sold Faraday Future put options
between January 28, 2021 and November 15, 2021. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. To get more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/faraday-future-intelligent-electric-inc-f-k-a-property-solutions-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form
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.
Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. F/K/A Property Solutions
Acquisition Corp. NEWS - FFIE NEWS
CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (1) the Company had
assets in China frozen by courts, (2) a significant percentage of
its deposits for future deliveries were attributable to a single
undisclosed affiliate; (3) the Company's cars were not as close to
production as the Company claimed; (4) as a result of previously
issued statements that were misleading and/or inaccurate, Faraday
Future could not timely file its quarterly report; and (5) 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.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Faraday
Future you have until February 22, 2022 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 Faraday Future securities between
January 28, 2021 and November 15, 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/faraday-future-intelligent-electric-inc-f-k-a-property-solutions-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form
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 70 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]
FAT SNAX: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fat Snax, Inc. The
case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Fat Snax, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10997
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Fat Snax -- https://fatsnax.com/ -- provides low-carb snacks and
desserts to customers since 2017.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
Lake Success, NY 11042
Phone: (917) 957-0978
Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com
FOREVER HOME SERVICES: Koga Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forever Home Service,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Valentina T. Koga, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Forever Home Service, LLC, Does
1 - 10, Case No. 34-2021-00312750-CU-MC-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Dec. 15, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Misc Complaints Other – Civil
Unlimited."
Forever Home Services -- https://yourforeverhomeservices.com/ -- is
a home repair service company doing a wide variety of home
repairs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrei Armas, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ANDREI ARMAS
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (858) 336-2518
FRESNO, CA: Feb. 14 Water Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Montalvo, writing for The Fresno Bee, reports that
residents of northeast Fresno are a step closer to seeing the
results of a class action lawsuit against the city of Fresno for
alleged damages caused by the city's water delivery system,
according to Fresno County Superior Court records.
In early 2016, northeast Fresno residents filed a class action
lawsuit against the city of Fresno, alleging that the city's water
ruined their galvanized plumbing, causing iron and other heavy
metals to leach into their tap water from the corroded plumbing.
Earlier in December, a court of appeals denied a request from the
city to block the class action lawsuit from moving forward. The
city of Fresno denies any liability or wrongdoing associated with
the claims alleged in the class action lawsuit.
Notices of the lawsuit were made public on the city's website.
Hundreds of residents in northeast Fresno are expected to receive
notices in the mail.
A jury trial is set to start on July 25, 2022, in the Fresno County
Superior Court.
WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
Starting in early 2016, residents in northeast Fresno started
complaining about discolored water coming from the faucets in their
homes. In response, the city conducted an "exhaustive" 90-day
study, which revealed the problem appeared to have been pinned
down: corroding, unwrapped galvanized piping; dissimilar metal
corrosion; and soil erosion.
The first of two class action lawsuits was filed in September 2016;
the second was filed in May 2017.
In August, a judge granted a motion to certify the class that
represents between 1,800 to 2,400 residents, which made the
multiple claims more manageable by having only one case instead of
dozens of individual lawsuits.
In September, the city of Fresno asked the Court of Appeal to
overturn the Superior Court ruling, but was denied.
"We're very appreciative and grateful for the court making the
order that it did and the appellate court allowing that (class
action) order to stay in place," said Stuart Chandler, one of the
lawyers representing the plaintiffs, who in August told The Bee
that the city was fighting "tooth and nail" to stop the lawsuits
from being combined into a class action case. Today's top headlines
Sign up for the Afternoon Update and get the day's biggest stories
in your inbox. SIGN UP This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the
Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
NORTHEAST FRESNO: HERE'S WHO IS IMPACTED BY THE CLASS ACTION
LAWSUIT
To be included as part of the class action, you must be the owner
of residential single-family real property located within the city
of Fresno's discolored water investigation area (from E. Copper
Avenue to E. Sierra Avenue, and from Highway 41 to N. Willow
Avenue). Also, you must have lived in the area anytime from Jan. 1,
2016 to Aug. 2, 2021 and had galvanized iron plumbing, received
water service from the city of Fresno and reported discolored
"rusty" water at that address to the city.
Chandler said the court also certified two sub-classes — one for
class members who obtained water quality test results from the city
indicating iron at any tested fixture above 0.3 mg/L, and another
for class members who have not obtained water quality test results
from the city of Fresno.
Residents that meet these criteria are automatically class members
on the lawsuit. No further action is required.
The city of Fresno is expected to be sending the short-form class
notice by mail to the billing addresses of city water customers at
single-family residential properties located within ZIP codes:
93710, 93720, and 93730.
For residents that would like to opt out of the class action, the
deadline is February 14, 2022. Those who wish to opt out of the
lawsuit must mail a completed, signed, and dated Request for
Exclusion form to the CPT Group, Inc., at the following address:
Micheli, et al. v. City of Fresno
c/o CPT Group, Inc.
50 Corporate Park
Irvine, CA 92606 [GN]
FTP DESIGNS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FTP Designs, LLC. The
case is styled as Victor Lopez, on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. FTP Designs, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10818 (S.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 16, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ftp Designs, LLC -- https://www.pistildesigns.com/ -- was founded
in 2003. The company's line of business includes the wholesale
distribution of piece goods or yard goods of natural or manmade
fibers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
GANGESHWAR LLC: Chavez Files Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gangeshwar LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Kenneth T. Chavez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Gangeshwar LLC, Globiwest
International Management Services, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-06981
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Education Civil Rights.
Globiwest International Management Services Inc. --
https://www.globiwest.com/ -- operates as a hotel management
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Segal, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 415-0100
Email: msegal@segallegal.com
GARDEN GROVE, CA: Phan Files Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Garden Grove,
et al. The case is styled as Tri Nhu Phan, individually and on
behalf of a Class of Persons similarly situated v. City of Garden
Grove, Garden Grove Calif Police Dept, Chief Tom Dare, Officer E.
Leyva, Officer R. Luz, Officer Inspector Brown, Romantix Adult
Bookstore, Does 1 through X, inclusive, Case No.
8:21-cv-01987-DOC-DFM (C.D. Cal., Dec. 6, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
Garden Grove -- https://ggcity.org/ -- is a city in northern Orange
County, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce W. Nickerson, III, Esq.
BRUCE W. NICKERSON LAW OFFICES
231 Manor Drive
San Carlos, CA 94070
Phone: (650) 594-0195
Fax: (650) 596-0595
Email: brucenic@pacbell.net
- and -
Audrey Stephanie Loftin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF AUDREY STEPHANIE LOFTIN
782 Pacific Avenue
Long Beach, CA 90813
Phone: (562) 621-6300
Email: asloftin@longbeachlaw.com
GARTNER STUDIOS: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gartner Studios, LLC.
The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Gartner Studios, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-10733-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gartner Studios, Inc. -- https://www.gartnerstudios.com/ -- is a
leader in print and social stationery, greeting card, licensed
digital design, party goods, print-at-home and personalized
stationery, and event supplies throughout North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
Lake Success, NY 11042
Phone: (917) 957-0978
Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com
GAVLAK LLC: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gavlak L.L.C. The
case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Gavlak L.L.C., Case No.
1:21-cv-10799-ER (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
GAVLAK -- https://www.gavlakgallery.com/ -- is a contemporary fine
art gallery based in Los Angeles and Palm Beach.[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
GEMPLER'S INC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gempler's Inc. The
case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Gempler's Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10996
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gempler's -- https://gemplers.com/ -- offers landscaping, growing,
safety supplies, clothing, footwear and pest control needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
Lake Success, NY 11042
Phone: (917) 957-0978
Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Snyder Sues Over Inaccurate Information Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Snyder, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-24256-BB (S.D.
Fla., Dec. 6, 2021), is brought against the Defendant on behalf of
all persons in the United States who are current or former owners
and/or lessees of model year 2020 GMC Sierra 1500 and 2020 Chevy
Silverado 1500, as a result of inaccurate and incorrect Trailering
Information Labels.
On September 28, 2020, the Plaintiff purchased a new 2020 GMC
Sierra 1500 from a local car dealership in Pembroke Pines, Florida.
Plaintiff consulted the Trailering Information Label on the 2020
GMC Sierra 1500 prior to purchasing the vehicle, because he
intended to use the 2020 GMC Sierra 1500 specifically to tow a
recreation vehicle. Accordingly, Plaintiff relied on the advertised
gross combined weight rating ("GCWR") of 16,800 pounds when
purchasing the 2020 GMC Sierra 1500.
Then, in April 2021, GM sent a letter to the Plaintiff and Class
Members informing them that the advertised GCWR on the Trailering
Information Label for the 2020 GMC Sierra 1500 was inaccurate.
According to Defendant's disclosure, Plaintiff's 2020 GMC Sierra
1500 had a GCWR of 15,000 pounds – 1,800 pounds less than the
GCWR that Defendant used to advertise and sell the vehicles to
Plaintiff and Class Members. The 2020 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 was
likewise affected by incorrect Trailering Information Labels.
Had Plaintiff and Class Members known that the Class Vehicles'
actual GCWR at the time of purchase, and in light of the safety
hazard posed by towing loads in excess of a vehicle's capacity,
they would have not bought the Class Vehicles or would have paid
much less. As such, the Plaintiff and Class members have not
received the value of their bargain in purchasing their Class
Vehicles and have suffered damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased his 2020 GMC Sierra 1500 primarily for
personal, family or household use.
GM designs, builds, markets and sells the Class Vehicles throughout
the United States, including Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael E. Criden, Esq.
Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
7301 SW 57th Court, Ste. 515
South Miami, FL 33143
Phone: 305.357.9000
Facsimile: 305.357.9050
Email: mcriden@cridenlove.com
lgrossman@cridenlove.com
GENESCO INC: Kirkpatrick Files Suit in N.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Genesco Inc. The case
is styled as Michael Kirkpatrick, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Genesco Inc. doing business as:
Journeys, Case No. 1:21-cv-01369-BKS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Dec. 22,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Genesco Inc. -- https://genesco.gcs-web.com/ -- is an American
publicly owned specialty retailer of branded footwear and
accessories and is a wholesaler of branded and licensed footwear
based in Nashville, Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
GINGKO BIOWORKS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of January 18 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs
investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed
against Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc. ("Ginkgo") (NYSE: DNA) f/k/a
Soaring Eagle Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: SRNG). The action charges
Ginkgo with violations of the federal securities laws, including
omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations relating to the
company's business, operations, and prospects. As a result of
Ginkgo's materially misleading statements to the public, Ginkgo
investors have suffered significant losses.
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: January 18, 2022
CLASS PERIOD: May 11, 2021 through October 5, 2021
CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:
James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Toll Free (844) 887-9500 or
Email at info@ktmc.com
GINKGO'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
Ginkgo, headquartered in Boston, is a biotech company that develops
platforms for cell programming which are used to enable biological
production of products, such as novel therapeutics, food
ingredients, and chemicals currently derived from petroleum.
On October 6, 2021, analyst Scorpion Capital published an
investigative report concluding "Ginkgo is a house of cards - in
our opinion, one of the most brazen frauds of the last 20 years."
The report indicated that Ginkgo's business model is a
related-party model whereby essentially 100% of the company's
deferred revenue are derived from related-party "customers" it
created, funded, controls or influences via its ownership position
and board seats. Scorpion also alleged that Ginkgo has engaged in a
brazen effort to misclassify and misreport related-party revenue
and deceive investors with phony accounting and at least half of
Ginkgo's reported foundry revenue is phantom, non-cash and "pure
accounting hocus-pocus."
Following this news, Ginkgo's stock price fell $1.39, or
approximately 12%, to close at $10.59 per share on October 6,
2021.
Recently, on November 15, 2021, Ginkgo admitted that shortly after
the issuance of the Scorpion Capital report, the company received
an inquiry from the United States Department of Justice relating to
the financial misconduct allegations in the report.
WHAT CAN I DO?
Ginkgo investors may, no later than January 18, 2022, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Ginkgo investors who have suffered
significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more
information.
WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?
A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.
ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. At the end of the day, we have succeeded if the bad
guys pay up, and if you recover your assets. The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]
GMRI INC: Breland Slams Improper Wages, Unsafe Workplace
--------------------------------------------------------
Jason Breland, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. GMRI, Inc., Olive Garden Holdings, LLC and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV46911
(Cal. Super., December 23, 2021), seeks unpaid wages and interest
thereon for Defendants' failure to pay for all hours worked and
minimum wage rate, failure to authorize or permit required meal
periods, failure to authorize or permit required rest periods,
statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon
separation of employment, reimbursement of business-related
expenses, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable
attorney's fees, costs and interest pursuant to California Labor
Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.
Breland was required to participate in temperature checks and
COVID-19 health questionnaires prior to clocking in, wherein they
were under his employer's control but not compensated for their
time in doing so. He also alleges that timecards were routinely
rounded to the quarter hour, where oftentimes the rounding would
cause employees to not be paid for all hours they worked. Breland
also alleges that his employer failed to take safety measures
required to keep employees safe during COVID-19.[BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213)761-5484
Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
Email: nazo@koullaw.com
- and -
Garen Majarian, Esq.
MAJARIAN LAW GRO
18250 Ventura Blvd.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Telephone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
Email: garen@maj arianlawgroup.
GN AUDIO USA: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GN Audio USA Inc. The
case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. GN Audio USA Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10810 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The GN Group -- https://www.gn.com/ -- is a global leader in
intelligent audio solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
GOOGLE LLC: Settles Location Data Breach Class Action in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Klein Lawyers LLP disclosed that class actions were brought against
Google LLC in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. The class
actions relate to the collection of location data from Android
phones. Google implemented a project to transmit location
information to itself from smartphones. The conduct began January
1, 2017 and ended December 31, 2017.
This action has been settled.
A copy of the Settlement Agreement is available at:
http://www.callkleinlawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/National-Settlement-Agreement-1.pdf
[GN]
HAIN CELESTIAL: 2nd Cir. Vacates, Remands Class Action Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on
December 17, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
unanimously vacated and remanded for reconsideration the dismissal
by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York of a putative securities class action asserting claims under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), and Rule 10b-5(b) promulgated thereunder, against a health
food product manufacturing company (the "Company") and certain of
its executives, for alleged misstatements regarding the Company's
sales and internal controls. In re: The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 20-1517 (2d Cir. Dec. 17, 2021). The
late District Judge Arthur Spatt granted defendants' motion to
dismiss, with prejudice, the Second Amended Complaint (the "SAC"),
holding that plaintiffs failed to allege a fraudulent scheme or
business practice in violation of the terms of Rule 10b-5(a)-(c),
and further failed to sufficiently plead scienter. Plaintiffs
appealed the district court's dismissal with respect to their Rule
10b-5(b) claims. The Second Circuit vacated the dismissal, holding
that the district court erred in finding that plaintiffs' Rule
10b-5(b) claim relied on plaintiffs' pleading a fraudulent business
scheme or plan.
According to plaintiffs, defendants allegedly made misleading
statements that attributed the Company's "high sales volume to
strong consumer demand" while concealing an alleged channel
stuffing scheme. The alleged scheme -- a practice whereby the
Company's customers were offered valuable incentives to purchase
more of the Company's product than needed before the end of each
financial quarter -- allegedly allowed the Company to report
"unsustainably inflated quarterly sales results." In dismissing
plaintiffs' Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) claims, the district court held
that the alleged channel stuffing conduct did not constitute
"inherently fraudulent" conduct. Finding that the channel stuffing
was "legitimate," the district court dismissed plaintiffs' Rule
10b-5(b) claim, holding that it similarly failed "because its
predicate [was] the illegitimacy of the channel stuffing practices
[which] the [district court] already found to be legitimate."
Accordingly, the district court held that the SAC did not
sufficiently plead violations of Rules 10b-5(a)-(c) and scienter
and dismissed the SAC with prejudice.
The Second Circuit first addressed the differences among Rule
10b-5(a), (b), and (c). Whereas clauses (a) and (c) require
allegations of the "use of a fraudulent deceptive device, scheme,
artifice, act, or practice," the Court clarified that Rule 10b-5(b)
is "significantly different" because it "focuses not on schemes,
devices, or practices, but on statements made." The Second Circuit
held that the district court's finding with respect to the
legitimacy of the channel stuffing "is not dispositive of
[p]laintiffs' Rule 10b-5(b) claim" because the "conduct underlying
a purportedly misleading statement or omission" does not need to be
fraudulent itself. In particular, the SAC alleged the defendants
misleadingly stated that the Company's favorable sales figures were
attributable to "strong consumer demand" for its products while
failing to disclose that demand for its products was declining and
that a significant percentage of sales was in fact attributable to
the alleged practice of channel stuffing. The Second Circuit held
that the district court's reasoning "reflect[ed] a misunderstanding
of the requirements of clause (b)," and accordingly vacated the
district court's decision that the SAC "failed to satisfy" the
requirements of Rule 10b-5(b).
Turning next to the issue of scienter, the Second Circuit found
that the district court erred in failing to weigh plaintiffs'
scienter allegations "as a whole." The Court found that the
district court's "mistaken understanding" of the alleged
misstatements and underlying conduct "inevitably affected" its
finding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead scienter. In
particular, the Court noted that, although the district court
separately considered both the individual defendants' knowledge of
the alleged channel stuffing and their "motive and opportunity to
commit fraud," the district court erred by not considering "the
total weight of the circumstantial allegations together with the
allegations of motive and opportunity." (emphasis added). The
Second Circuit held that on remand the district court should
consider the "cumulative effect of the circumstantial allegations
of intent" and the "pleaded facts relating to motive and
opportunity." However, the Second Circuit "express[ed] no views" as
to whether the SAC's allegation are sufficient to plead scienter.
Accordingly, the Second Circuit vacated and remanded the dismissal
of the SAC to the district court. Noting that the case must be
reassigned to a new judge upon remand, the Court instructed that
the newly assigned judge should "consider afresh" whether the SAC
sufficiently alleged a violation of Rule 10b-5(b).
The case is In re: The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation [GN]
HAIRTAMIN LLC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hairtamin LLC. The
case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Hairtamin LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10731-KPF
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hairtamin LLC -- https://hairtamin.com/ -- covers dietary and
nutritional supplements for the hair.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
Lake Success, NY 11042
Phone: (917) 957-0978
Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com
HARBOR BAY: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harbor Bay Group,
Inc. The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Harbor Bay Group, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-10803-LJL (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Harbor Bay Group, Inc. was founded in 2013. The company's line of
business includes providing various business services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
HARTFORD INSURANCE: Hobson Files Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hartford Insurance
Company of the Midwest. The case is styled as Janet Hobson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Case No. 2:21-cv-20696
(D.N.J., Dec. 23, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest --
https://www.thehartford.com/ -- operates as an insurance service
provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Nicole Edelsberg, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
3331 Sunset Avenue
Ocean, NJ 07712
Phone: (305) 610-5223
Email: rachel@dapeer.com
HEARTLAND EXPRESS: Freitas, Calvert Seek Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGG FREITAS and RYAN
CALVERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. HEARTLAND EXPRESS, INC. OF IOWA, Case No.
2:19-cv-00383-SAB (E.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying the following classes under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(a) and (b)(3):
-- Washington Class:
"All current and former employees of Interstate
Distributor Co. or Heartland Express, Inc. who drove as
over-the-road truck drivers on at least one tour of duty
away from home for 24 hours or more, while residents of
Washington, at any time from November 5, 2015 through the
date of the class notice;" and
-- California Class:
"All current and former employees of Interstate
Distributor Co. or Heartland Express, Inc. who drove as
over-the-road truck drivers on at least one tour of duty
away from home for 24 hours or more, while residents of,
and/or based out of a facility in California, at any time
from November 5, 2015 through the date of the class
notice."
These definitions are intended to narrow those alleged in
Plaintiffs' Complaint, to exclude any Drivers who returned
home nightly during their employment; and/or who have not
resided in and/or been based out of facilities in
California or Washington during the alleged liability
period.
Heartland dispatches its employee truck drivers on multi-day tours
of duty for days and often weeks on end before returning home. The
Drivers literally live in the workplace (the Heartland trucks), as
Heartland's general 6 policy is to not provide motels or other
lodging. Instead, Heartland has its Drivers attempt to rest in the
truck's cramped “sleeper berth,” a small compartment in the cab
without a bathroom or sink. At the same time, Heartland maintains a
uniform policy of not paying the Drivers for any sleeper berth time
incurred during their multi-day tours of duty. The question of
whether this uniform policy passes muster under Washington and
California state law is ideally suited for class treatment, the
Plaintiffs contend.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 17,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mJ1WOJ
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
Erika L. Nusser, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103-8869
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
E-mail: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
enusser@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
Joshua Konecky, Esq.
Nathan Piller, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
npiller@schneiderwallace.com
HEARTWISE INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heartwise
Incorporated. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Heartwise
Incorporated, Case No. 1:21-cv-10808 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Heartwise Incorporated -- https://www.heartwise.com/ -- offers
nutritional supplements.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
HENKEL CORPORATION: Body Spray Contains Benzene, Lazo Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Lazo, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Henkel Corporation and Thriving Brands LLC,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01702 (D. Conn., Dec. 22, 2021) alleges that
Defendants' advertising and marketing campaign is false, deceptive,
and misleading because the Right Guard body spray line of products
contain benzene, which Defendants do not list or mention anywhere
on the Products' packaging or labeling.
This action seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business
practices of the Defendants with respect to the marketing and sale
of Defendants' Right Guard body spray line of products throughout
the country, including, but not limited to, the following
products:
-- Right Guard – Sport, Fresh, Up To 48 HR Odor Protection; and
-- Right Guard – Sport, Powder Dry, Up To 48 HR Odor Protection.
The Defendants do specifically list both the active and inactive
ingredients of these Products but fail to disclose that the product
contains "benzene."
Benzene is a widely recognized and incredibly dangerous substance,
especially in the context of applying it to the skin, and it offers
no body spray benefit whatsoever. Rather, it is a harmful
carcinogen. Benzene has been recognized, acknowledged, and accepted
as a well-known health hazard and human carcinogen for
approximately a century.
The Plaintiff brings this matter on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated. The Defendants orchestrated deceptive marketing
and labeling practices. Defendants' customers were uniformly
impacted by and exposed to this misconduct. Accordingly, this
Complaint is uniquely situated for class-wide resolution, including
injunctive relief.
The Class is defined as all consumers who purchased the Products
anywhere in the United States during the Class Period.
The Plaintiff also seeks certification, to the extent necessary or
appropriate, of a subclass of individuals who purchased the
Products in the state of New York at any time during the Class
Period (the “New York Subclass”).
The Plaintiff and those similarly situated certainly expect that
the body spray they purchase will comply with its labeling and not
contain any knowingly harmful substances or carcinogens like
benzene, says the suit.
Accordingly, Defendants' alleged conduct violated and continues to
violate, the New York General Business Law sections 49 and 350. The
Defendants also breached and continue to their warranties regarding
the Products. In addition, the Defendants have been and continue to
be unjustly enriched. Lastly, Plaintiff brings a claim for medical
monitoring costs associated with testing, monitoring, and
remediating the effects of Plaintiff and Class Members' benzene
exposure.
The Plaintiff purchased Defendants' Products that contained
benzene, including Right Guard -- Sport, Fresh, Up To 48 HR Odor
Protection and Right Guard -- Sport, Powder Dry, Up To 48 HR Odor
Protection.
Henkel Corporation is a domestic corporation with its headquarters
and principal place of business located in Rocky Hill, Connecticut.
Henkel Corporation conducts business throughout the United States,
including this district. Henkel Corporation's line of body
spray products, including the Products purchased by Plaintiff and
Class Members, are available at retail stores throughout New York
and the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
REARDON SCANLON LLP
45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 955-9455
Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com
- and -
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Joseph Lipari, Esq.
Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
David C. Magagna Jr., Esq.
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: 215-592-1500
E-mail: dmagagna@lfsblaw.com
cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Ave, Suite 1420
Miami FL, 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com
aobergfell@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
HENKEL US: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Simmons Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES SIMMONS on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HENKEL US OPERATIONS CORPORATION, Case No.
1:21-cv-02358-CAB (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 17, 2021) is a collective action
instituted by Plaintiff as a result of Defendant's practices and
policies of not paying its non-exempt employees, including
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, for all hours
worked, including overtime compensation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act as well as a "class action" pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 to remedy violations of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act.
Specifically, the Plaintiff worked as a chemical operator as
Henkel's Cleveland Ohio plant. Other similarly situated employees
were employed as manufacturing employees. The Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees worked at Defendant's various
locations in Ohio.
The Defendant allegedly classified Plaintiff and other similarly
situated manufacturing employees as non-exempt employees. The
Defendant paid Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing
employees an hourly wage.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing employees
frequently worked over 40 hours per week. They worked on average
between 40 and 60 hours per week.
The Defendant manufactures adhesives, sealants, laundry detergents,
laundry additives and other home care items. The Defendant employed
Plaintiff as a manufacturing employee since 1998.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
Matthew S. Grimsley, 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
alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY: Faces Synergy Over Anticompetitive Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SYNERGY HOTELS, LLC, an Ohio Limited Liability Company, on behalf
of itself and all those similarly situated v. HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY
FRANCHISING, LLC, SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS, INC. (SCH) d/b/a
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP (IHG) and IHG OWNERS ASSOCIATION,
INC. Case No. 1:21-cv-05164-MHC (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 17, 2021) seeks to
put an end to IHG/HHF's alleged unlawful, abusive, fraudulent,
anticompetitive and unconscionable practices designed solely to
benefit and to enrich IHG/HHF's shareholders and to do so at the
expense and to the detriment of Plaintiff and the class members,
namely, similarly situated HHF franchisees.
SCH is the world's largest hotel company by room count, and does
business under the name InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG).
IHG operates approximately some 5,600 hotels across more than 15
brands. IHG takes an asset-light approach, owning, franchising
and/or managing hotels for third parties, with Holiday Inn as its
mainstay chain, under such brands as Holiday Inn, Holiday Inn
Express and Holiday Inn Resorts (the "Holiday Inn Brands"), each
bearing the identification as "an IHG Hotel."
IHG also owns, manages and/or franchises other hotel brands such as
Crowne Plaza, InterContinental, Staybridge Suites, Candlewood
Suites, Hotel Indigo, Regent and Kimpton. IHG owns Defendant
Holiday Hospitality Franchising, LLC (HHF).
The Plaintiff is a franchisee that owns and operates a hotel
located at 4870 Old Rathmell Court in Orbetz, Ohio 43207, that
bears a HHF brand mark pursuant to a License Agreement.
Many HHF Franchisees are individuals, single member limited
liability companies or closely held corporations who are either
immigrants or second-generation Americans of Indian or other South
Asian origin. Plaintiff is one such HHF franchisee.
At the heart of IHG/HHF's unlawful scheme is its requirement that
its franchisees use certain mandated vendors and suppliers for the
purchase of virtually all goods and services necessary to maintain
and to run a hotel, says the suit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
305 W. Nationwide Blvd
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Telephone: (866) 827-6537
E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
mboyle@meyerwilson.com
- and -
Andrew P. Bleiman, Esq.
Mark Fishbein, Esq.
Justin M. Klein, Esq.
MARKS & KLEIN, LLP
1363 Shermer Road, Suite 318
Northbrook, IL 60062
Telephone: (312) 206-5162
Facsimile: (732) 219-0625
E-mail: andrew@marksklein.com
mark@ marksklein.com
justin@marksklein.com
- and -
Justin E. Proper, Esq.
WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP
1650 Market Street
One Liberty Place, Suite 1800
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7395
Telephone: (215) 864-7165
E-mail: properj@whiteandwilliams.com
HOLLYWOOD CHAIRS: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hollywood Chairs. The
case is styled as Eugene Duncan, and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Hollywood Chairs, Case No.
1:21-cv-07075-KAM-MMH (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hollywood Chairs is located in San Marcos, CA, United States and is
part of the Household and Institutional Furniture and Kitchen
Cabinet Manufacturing Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawfirm.net
I.C. SYSTEM: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.C. System, Inc. The
case is styled as Chaquita Johnson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. I.C. System, Inc., Case No.
6:21-cv-02125-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla., Dec. 20, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
I.C. System -- https://www.icsystem.com/ -- is the leader in
accounts receivable management.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103
Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: (754) 217-3084
Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com
I.C. SYSTEM: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.C. System, Inc. The
case is styled as Chaquita Johnson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. I.C. System, Inc., Case No.
6:21-cv-02113 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 17, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
I.C. System -- https://www.icsystem.com/ -- is the leader in
accounts receivable management.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
INDIVIOR INC: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Suboxone Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------
Your rights may be affected by a class action lawsuit regarding the
price paid for Suboxone. The case name is In Re: Suboxone
(Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Naloxone) Antitrust Litigation,
and the civil action number is 2:13-md-02445-MSG. This lawsuit
asserts that Defendants violated certain state antitrust laws in
the United States, harming competition and causing class members to
overpay for Suboxone. Defendants deny that they violated any laws.
Certain Defendants have been dismissed from the suit for
jurisdictional reasons. The sole Defendant at this time is
Indivior, Inc. ("Indivior").
PLEASE NOTE: This is NOT a recall, safety, or other similar
notice. This lawsuit is not asserting that Suboxone is unsafe or
ineffective. This notice is only for purposes of advising you of
certain rights in litigation.
This is only a summary. The Court has not decided whether Indivior
did anything wrong. There is no money available now, and no
guarantee there will be. For additional details, please read the
Long-Form Notice available to download at www.SuboxAntitrust.com.
[GN]
INFOPAY INC: Bensen Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against InfoPay, Inc. The
case is styled as Loretta Bensen, Sherry Gaul, Shontonna Harris,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
InfoPay, Inc., Intermedia Ventures LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-12061-ADB
(D. Mass., Dec. 16, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Infopay -- https://www.infopay.com/ -- is a premier data technology
company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David S. Godkin, Esq.
BIRNBAUM & GODKIN, LLP
470 Atlantic Ave., 4th Flr.
Boston, MA 02210
Phone: (617) 307-6100
Fax: (617) 307-6101
Email: godkin@birnbaumgodkin.com
JAMES BELFORD: Ct. Tosses Plummer Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONTRELL PLUMMER v. JAMES
BELFORD, JOHN R. BALDWIN, STAZAK, HESLEY, SCOTT THOMPSON, MAC SHANE
FRANK, JOHN/JANE DOES, and TOMSHACK, Case No. 3:20-cv-01247-SPM
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Stephen P. McGlynn entered an order
denying Plummer's bid for class certification:
-- Plummer requests the Court to grant class action status to this
case in accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. (Doc. 1, p. 12). Because Plummer is proceeding pro se,
he cannot represent a class of plaintiffs.
The Court said, "The Complaint survives preliminary review pursuant
to Section 1915A. Counts 1 and 2 shall proceed against Belford,
Stazak, Frank, and Tomshack. Count 3 is dismissed with prejudice.
Plummer has failed to state a claim against the John Doe
Defendants, Baldwin, Helsey, and Thompson, and the claims against
them are dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is
directed to terminate them as defendants. the clerk of court is
further directed to add the Warden of Pinckneyville, David
Mitchell, as a defendant in his official capacity only for the
purpose of implementing any injunctive relief that may be ordered.
Finally, Plummer is advised that he is under a continuing
obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and each opposing party
informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in
writing and not later than 7 days after a transfer or other change
in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will cause a
delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in
dismissal of this action for want of prosecution."
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pAlK8P at no extra charge.[CC]
JANKMAN LLC: Chimienti Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINIC CHIMIENTI, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. JANKMAN LLC, d/b/a JACK'S WIFE FREDA, DEAN
JANKELOWITZ and MAYA JANKELOWITZ, jointly and severally, Case No.
1:21-cv-10853 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2021) alleges that the Defendants
willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law by failing to pay the minimum wage, failing to provide an
accurate wage statement with every wage payment, and unlawfully
retaining gratuities.
The Plaintiff, on his behalf, alleges that Defendants retaliated
against him, by taking away his promotion and raise, for engaging
in protected activity of requesting pay for time spent in mandatory
manager meetings, violating the Labor Law.
Mr. Chimienti worked for the Defendants as a server and bartender
at the West Village location of their chain of South
African-Mediterranean restaurants from February 2015 to March 15,
2020. As a server, the Plaintiff was responsible for taking
customers' orders and serving them food and beverages. As a
bartender, Plaintiff was responsible for preparing beverages and
serving them to Defendants' customers.
The Defendants operate and manage four South African-Mediterranean
restaurants in New York, including the West Village location at 50
Carmine Street, New York, New York.
Defendants Dean Jankelowitz and Maya Jankelowitz own, operate and
control Jack's Wife Freda's day-to-day operations and management
and jointly employed Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees at all relevant times.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10017-6705
Telephone: (212) 392-4772
E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
milana@lipskylowe.com
JUPITER WELLNESS: Lifshitz Law Probes Firm for Breach Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jupiter Wellness, Inc. (NASDAQCM: JUPW)
Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. announces investigation into possible
breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the merger of JUPW
and Next Frontier Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
If you are an investor, and would like information about our
investigation, please complete the Information Request Form or
contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780 or
e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING.(c) 2021 Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C., 1190
Broadway, Hewlett, New York 11557, Tel: (516)493-9780. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. [GN]
KINGS COUNTY NURSERIES: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kings County
Nurseries Inc. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. Kings County Nurseries Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10850 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kings County Nurseries -- https://kingscountynurseries.com/ -- is a
garden center in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
KNIFECENTER INC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KnifeCenter, Inc. The
case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. KnifeCenter, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10736-LJL
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
KnifeCenter -- https://www.knifecenter.com/ -- is the original and
largest online knife and cutlery catalog offering pocket knives and
every pocketknife from Benchmade Knives and Spyderco Knives.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
Lake Success, NY 11042
Phone: (917) 957-0978
Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Foster Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koninklijke Philips
N.V., et al. The case is styled as Anthony Harris, John Bramblett,
Paula Schellenberger, Patrick Moriarty, Robin Polite, Donna Martin,
Matthew De Lamater, Tom John, Joseph Stewart, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Koninklijke Philips
N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips RS North America LLC, Case
No2:21-cv-01822-JFC (W.D. Pa., Dec. 15, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal
Injury Product Liability.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. -- https://www.philips.com/global -- is a
Dutch multinational conglomerate corporation that was founded in
Eindhoven.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Email: ekilpela@lcllp.com
LAMPSUSA LLC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LampsUSA, LLC. The
case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. LampsUSA, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-10813 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
LampsUSA -- https://www.lampsusa.com/ -- offers light fixtures and
lamps plus modern home lighting and room lights.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
LARKSTONE ACQUISITIONS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Larkstone
Acquisitions. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. Larkstone Acquisitions, Case No.
1:21-cv-10851 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
LISA CHARMEL USA: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lise Charmel USA
Corp. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Lise Charmel USA Corp.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-10722-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lise Charmel -- https://www.lisecharmel.com/ -- is a women's
clothing brand that manufactures and distributes lingerie
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
LOCKS GALLERY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Locks Gallery. The
case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Locks Gallery, Case No.
1:21-cv-10749 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Locks Gallery -- https://www.locksgallery.com/ -- represents an
international group of critically respected contemporary artists
working in a wide variety of disciplines.[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
LYNN & LAUREN: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lynn & Lauren, LLC.
The case is styled as Victor Lopez, on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Lynn & Lauren, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10852
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
LYNN & LAUREN, LLC is a USA domiciled entity or foreign entity
operating in the USA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
MAJOR ENERGY: Glikin Suit Transferred to D. Maryland
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Angela Glikin, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Major Energy Electric Services LLC,
Case No. 7:21-cv-00356, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland on Dec. 23, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03251-DLB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Major Energy Services LLC -- https://majorenergy.com/ --
distributes energy products. The Company supplies natural gas and
electricity.[BN]
MAKEY MAKEY: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Makey Makey, LLC. The
case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Makey Makey, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10986-PGG
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Makey Makey -- https://makeymakey.com/ -- is a fun-for-all
educational STEM kit that brings engineering and coding concepts to
life in exciting new ways.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
Lake Success, NY 11042
Phone: (917) 957-0978
Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com
MALONE'S SERVICE: Long Seeks to Recover Porters' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
JASON LONG, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MALONE'S SERVICE AND PERFORMANCE, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-05212-LMM (N.D. Ga., Dec. 21, 2021) seeks all available
relief, including compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Long brings this action individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated who worked for Malone's and were paid a
straight hourly wage but no overtime from three years preceding the
filing of the Original Complaint through the final disposition of
this matter.
The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are those current and
former Porters who worked for Malone's, anywhere in the United
States, at any time from December 20, 2018 through the final
disposition of this matter, and were paid a straight hourly wage
for all hours worked but did not receive overtime for all hours
worked over 40 in each workweek.
Malone's allegedly misclassified Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members as independent contractors. Malone's also misclassified
Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members as overtime exempt
employees.
Although Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members routinely work
(and worked) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff and
the Putative Class Members were not paid overtime of at least one
and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours per workweek.
Malone's operates as a vehicle service provider in Marietta,
Georgia. As part of their services, Malone's employed (and
continues to employ) numerous Porters in the last three years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy Stephens, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4200,
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 965-1682
Facsimile: (470) 639-6866
E-mail: jstephens@forthepeople.com
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Carter Hastings, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER , PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
MANHATTAN MIDTOWN: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manhattan Midtown
Dental, P.C. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. Manhattan Midtown Dental, P.C., Case
No. 1:21-cv-11051 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 23, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Midtown Manhattan Dental -- https://www.midtownmanhattandental.com/
-- provide a comfortable state-of-the-art facility fashioned for
the highest quality dental care available.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
MARATHON DIGITAL: Faces Schlatre Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAD SCHLATRE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. f/k/a MARATHON PATENT
GROUP, INC., MERRICK D. OKAMOTO, FREDERICK G. THIEL, and SIMEON
SALZMAN, Case No. 2:21-cv-02209-RFB-NJK (D. Nev., Dec. 17, 2021) is
a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Marathon securities between October 13, 2020 and
November 15, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company
and certain of its top officials.
In October 2020, Marathon announced the formation of a new joint
venture with Beowulf Energy LLC purportedly focused on delivering
low-cost power to Marathon's Bitcoin mining operations (the
"Beowulf Joint Venture"). In connection with that joint venture,
Marathon entered into a series of agreements with multiple parties
to design and build a data center in Hardin, Montana (the "Hardin
Facility"), issuing 6 million shares of its common stock to the
parties of those agreements.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. The Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) the Beowulf Joint Venture, as it related to the Hardin
Facility, implicated potential regulatory violations, including
U.S. securities law violations.
On November 15, 2021, Marathon disclosed that "the Company and
certain of its executives received a subpoena to produce documents
and communications concerning the Hardin, Montana data center
facility," and advised that "the SEC may be investigating whether
or not there may have been any violations of the federal securities
law."
On this news, Marathon's stock price fell $20.52 per share, or
27.03%, to close at $55.40 per share on November 15, 2021.
As a result of 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.
The Plaintiff acquired Marathon securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation
of the alleged corrective disclosures.
Marathon is a digital asset technology company that mines
cryptocurrencies with a focus on the blockchain ecosystem and the
generation of digital assets in U.S. The Company was formerly known
as "Marathon Patent Group, Inc." and changed its name to "Marathon
Digital Holdings, Inc." on March 1, 2021." The Individual
Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Esq.
MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD.
7915 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 104
Las Vegas, NE 89117
Telephone: (702) 330-4505
Facsimile: (702) 825.0141
E-mail: andrew@mlolegal.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
MARATHON DIGITAL: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Feb. 15 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Dec. 24 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed against
Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a Marathon Patent Group, Inc.)
("Marathon" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MARA) in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of investors
who purchased or acquired the common stock of Marathon between
October 13, 2020 and November 15, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
All investors who purchased the shares of Marathon Digital
Holdings, Inc. and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm
immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212)
545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the
action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. you
may, no later than February 15, 2022, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact
Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.
According to the filed Complaint, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
-- multiple parties to design and build a data center in Hardin,
Montana, implicated potential regulatory violations, including U.S.
securities law violations;
-- as a result, the Beowulf Joint Venture subjected Marathon to
a heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny;
the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative
impact on the Company's business and commercial prospects; and
-- as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.
The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other
class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts,
which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities
multi-district and consolidated litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Regional School Files RICO Suit in D. Maine
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McKinsey & Company
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Regional School Unit 34 Board of
Education, Regional School Unit 68 Board of Education, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. McKinsey &
Company Inc., McKinsey Holdings, Inc., McKinsey & Company, Inc.
United States, McKinsey & Company, Inc. Washington D.C., Case No.
1:21-cv-00366-NT (D. Maine, Dec. 20, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Racketeering
(RICO) Act.
McKinsey & Company -- https://www.mckinsey.com/ -- is a global
management consulting firm that serves leading businesses,
governments, non-governmental organizations, and
not-for-profits.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Melissa A. Hewey, Esq.
DRUMMOND WOODSUM & MACMAHON
84 Marginal Way, Suite 600
Portland, ME 04101
Phone: (207) 772-1941
Email: mhewey@dwmlaw.com
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Southwestern Central Files RICO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McKinsey & Company
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Southwestern Central School
District Board of Education, Rochester City School District Board
of Education, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
McKinsey & Company Inc., McKinsey Holdings, Inc., McKinsey &
Company, Inc. United States, McKinsey & Company, Inc. Washington
D.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-01286-LJV (W.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Racketeering
(RICO) Act.
McKinsey & Company -- https://www.mckinsey.com/ -- is a global
management consulting firm that serves leading businesses,
governments, non-governmental organizations, and
not-for-profits.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew J. Freedman, Esq.
HODGSON RUSS LLP
The Guaranty Building
140 Pearl Street, Suite 100
Buffalo, NY 14202
Phone: (716) 856-4000
Fax: (716) 849-0349
Email: afreedma@hodgsonruss.com
- and -
Karl W. Kristoff
235 Belvoir Road
Williamsville, NY 14221
Phone: (716) 634-1343
Email: kwk278@aol.com
MCMC LLC: Mauthe Seeks to Certify Class in TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D.,
P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. MCMC, LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-01901-EGS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying a class of persons with claims against
Defendant, MCMC, LLC alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA");
2. appointing Dr. Mauthe as the class representative; and
3. appointing Dr. Mauthe's attorneys, Bock Hatch & Oppenheim,
LLC and Shenkan Injury Lawyers, LLC, as class counsel
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Plaintiff seeks certification of a class of approximately 3,927
persons who were successfully sent four fax advertisements from
Defendant a total of 9,162 times.
The Plaintiff proposes the following class definition:
"All persons to whom faxes from MCMC were successfully sent
in December 2016, April 2017, July 2017, or December 2017
soliciting paid attendance at IAIME events, except those
persons faxed at a telephone number appearing in the IAIME
database or on MCMC’s list of facsimile numbers to which
persons invited MCMC to send facsimiles about meetings
offering continuing medical education credits."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 17,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EA7fWz
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
Molly E. Stemper, Esq.
BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC
203 N. La Salle St., Ste. 2100
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 658-5500
Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
- and -
Richard E. Shenkan, Esq.
SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
P.O. Box 7255
New Castle, PA 16107
Telephone: (248) 562-1320
Facsimile: (888) 769-1774
E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com
MDL 1917: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert. Briefing Schedule
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION (MDL No. 1917), Case No. 4:07-cv-05944-JST (N.D. Cal.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order to modify class
certification briefing schedule as follows:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
-- Class certification Jan. 14, 2022 Jan. 21, 2022
opposition and any
accompanying expert
reports due:
-- Class certification Jan. 28, 2022 Feb. 4, 2022
expert discovery
cut-off:
-- Class Certification Feb. 25, 2022 March 4, 2022
reply due:
-- Class Certification March 24, 2022 March 31, 2022
Motion Hearing:
A copy of the Parties motion dated Dec. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JoHiwO at no extra charge.[CC]
The Lead Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, are:
R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
Geoffrey C. Rushing, Esq.
Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
Matthew D. Heaphy, Esq.
SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
706 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 217-6810
Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
The Attorneys for Defendants Irico Group Corp. and Irico Display
Devices Co., Ltd., are:
John M. Taladay, Esq.
Evan J. Werbel, Esq.
Thomas E. Carter, Esq.
Andrew L. Lucarelli, Esq.
Jonathan Shapiro, Esq.
BAKER BOTTS LLP
700 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: (202) 639-7700
Facsimile: (202) 639-7890
E-mail: john.taladay@bakerbotts.com
evan.werbel@bakerbotts.com
tom.carter@bakerbotts.com
drew.lucarelli@bakerbotts.com
Jonathan.shapiro@bakerbotts.com
MID-STATES CONCRETE: Haynes Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER HAYNES, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown v. MID-STATES CONCRETE
INDUSTRIES, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-50475 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 21, 2021)
alleges that Defendant failed to pay overtime wages based on the
correct regular rate of pay to Plaintiff and other bonus-eligible
hourly employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly employee
subject to Defendant's Bonus Policy. During Plaintiff's employment
with Defendant, Defendant paid bonuses to hourly employees,
calculated pursuant to a formula set by company policy
("Defendant's Bonus Policy").
The Defendant is a South Beloit, Illinois based company that
provides cement and concrete products and services, including
processing and manufacturing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
MICHAEL L. FRADIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
5000 Rockside Road
Liberty Plaza - Suite 520
Independence, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 525-8890
E-mail: james@bswages.com
MIMECAST LIMITED: Lifshitz Law Probes Firm for Breach Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mimecast Limited (NASDAQGS: MIME)
Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. announces investigation into possible
breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the sale of MIME to
Permira for $80.00 in cash per share of MIME owned.
If you are an investor, and would like information about our
investigation, please complete the Information Request Form or
contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780 or
e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING.(c) 2021 Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C., 1190
Broadway, Hewlett, New York 11557, Tel: (516)493-9780. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. [GN]
MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL: Scheduling Order Entered in Sandro Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODRIGUEZ SANDRO v.
MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL CARBON FIBER AND COMPOSITES, INC., et al., Case
No. 8:21-cv-01711-CJC-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J.
Carney entered a scheduling order as follows:
1. All discovery, including discovery motions, shall be
completed by February 16, 2023. Discovery motions must be
filed and heard prior to this date.
2. The parties shall have until April 17, 2023 to file and
have heard all other motions, including motions to join or
amend the pleadings.
3. A pretrial conference will be held on Monday, June 19,
2023 at 03:00 PM. Full compliance with Local Rule 16 is
required.
4. The case is set for a jury trial, Tuesday, June 27, 2023
at 08:30 AM.
5. The parties are referred to Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) Procedure No. 3 -- Private Mediation. The parties
shall have until March 2, 2023 to conduct settlement
proceedings. The parties shall file with the Court a Joint
Status Report no later than five days after the ADR
proceeding is completed advising the Court of their
settlement efforts and status.
6. Plaintiff shall have until September 19, 2022 to file and
have heard any class certification motion.
Mitsubishi Chemical is doing business in carbon fiber
manufacturing.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Jp0Ilc at no extra charge.[CC]
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Monopolizes Licensed Products, Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Wheeler Hastings, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. National Football League, Inc., National
Football, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-09908 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2021)
alleges that the Defendants have engaged in an overarching
anticompetitive conspiracy to monopolize the online retail market
for NFL Licensed Products.
This alleged conspiracy consists of at least three related
components: First, Defendants colluded to boycott competing
retailers who sold NFL Licensed Products through third-party online
marketplaces like the Amazon Marketplace. This boycott eliminated
Defendants' competitors who would have charged lower prices for NFL
Licensed Products sold online. In so doing, the boycott removed the
downward pressure on prices and margins that, absent the
conspiracy, would have otherwise flowed directly from enhanced
competition. Second, having greatly reduced the number of retailers
in online marketplaces, Defendants conspired to fill the void by
entering into exclusive dealing arrangements that denied their
competitors access to manufacturers and suppliers. Third, having
solidified their dominant position in the online retail market for
NFL Licensed Products, Defendants, rather than compete with one
another, entered into anticompetitive licensing agreements that
have allowed Defendants to charge supracompetitive monopoly prices
and share the profits among themselves, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff is a representative of a proposed class of direct
purchasers of NFL-licensed merchandise such as t-shirts, hats,
jerseys, drinkware, and other sports-team-themed consumer goods
("NFL Licensed Products").
The Defendants are professional football teams, the NFL and
affiliated entities, and Fanatics, Inc. ("Fanatics"), an online
retailer of NFL Licensed Products. Collectively, Defendants
dominate the online marketplace for NFL Licensed Products.
The Defendants include League Properties, Inc., NFL Enterprises,
LLC, Arizona Cardinals Football Club LLC, Atlanta Falcons Football
Club, LLC, Baltimore Ravens Limited Partnership, Buccaneers Team
LLC, Buffalo Bills LLC, Carolina Panthers, LLC, The Chicago Bears
Football Club, Inc., Chargers Football Company, LLC, Cincinnati
Bengals, Inc., Cleveland Browns Football Company, LLC, Dallas
Cowboys Football Club, Ltd., Detroit Lions Inc., Football Northwest
LLC, Green Bay Packers, Inc., Houston NFL Holdings, L.P.,
Indianapolis Colts, Inc., Jacksonville Jaguars LLC, Kansas City
Chiefs Football Club, Inc., Las Vegas Raiders Football LLC, Miami
Dolphins Ltd., Minnesota Vikings Football LLC, New England Patriots
LLC, New Orleans Louisiana Saints, LLC, New York Football Giants
Inc., New York Jets Football Club, Inc. PDB Sports, Ltd. d/b/a
Denver Broncos Football Club, The Philadelphia Eagles Football Club
Inc., Pittsburgh Steelers Sports Inc., The Rams Football Company
LLC, San Francisco Forty Niners II, LLC, Tennessee Football, Inc.,
Washington Football, Inc., and Fanatics, Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew M. Purdy, Esq.
ANDREW M. PURDY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
15615 Alton Parkway, Suite 450
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 570-5500
Facsimile: (949) 298-7234
E-mail: amp@purdylegal.com
- and -
Christopher J. Cormier, Esq.
Spencer Cox, Esq.
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
Patrick Murphree, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 577-3977
Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
E-mail: ccormier@burnscharest.com
scox@burnscharest.com
wburns@burnscharest.com
pmurphree@burnscharest.com
NATIONAL RIFLE: McEwen's Bid to File 2nd Amended Suit Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled TRAVIS McEWEN, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL RIFLE
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA and INFOCISION, INC., d/b/a INFOCISION
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00153-LEW (D.
Maine), Judge Lance E. Walker of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maine:
-- grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's Motion
for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint;
-- grants in part the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings and to Lift Stay; and
-- denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Oral Argument.
Plaintiff Travis McEwen has brought this suit against Defendants
the National Rifle Association of America ("NRA") and InfoCision,
Inc., alleging that the Defendants violated certain provisions of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").
The Plaintiff is a former member of the NRA, who alleges that he
received numerous unwanted calls from InfoCision on behalf of the
NRA. According to the Plaintiff, he never consented to such calls,
and in fact took active steps to avoid receiving them by placing
himself on the National Do Not Call Registry in 2003 and by asking
InfoCision to place him on their "internal do-not-call list" in
about 2014 or 2015 (First Amended Complaint ("FAC")). The Plaintiff
states that he allowed his NRA membership to lapse in 2018.
Nevertheless, the Plaintiff alleges, he received as many as
sixty-six calls from InfoCision between 2017 and 2020, which he
claims were placed on behalf of other unspecified entities in
addition to the NRA.
The NRA is a membership-based organization that solicits and
collects membership fees to further its work in firearms advocacy,
training, and education. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant "the
NRA" is a distinct entity from "the NRA Foundation," a registered
501(c)(3) charitable organization. He also points to a recent
investigation by the New York Attorney General's office that has
brought to light severe mismanagement and self-dealing on the part
of NRA leadership, which calls into question the organization's
status as a nonprofit organization.
InfoCision is a telemarketing company that places marketing and
fundraising calls on behalf of clients, including the NRA. The
Plaintiff alleges that InfoCision uses an automatic telephone
dialing system ("ATDS") to make autodialed calls to consumers.
According to him, InfoCision obtains numbers for its call lists
from various sources, including the NRA's membership records and
third-party vendors.
The Plaintiff brought this putative class action against the NRA
and InfoCision, initially raising four counts but ultimately
amending his complaint to bring a total of six counts. In Counts A
and B, he alleged that the Defendants violated the TCPA by calling
consumers' telephones without their consent using an ATDS, and that
they did so willfully and knowingly. In Counts C and D, the
Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants violated the TCPA by calling
consumers, who had placed their names on the National Do-Not Call
Registry, and that they did so willfully and knowingly. In Counts E
and F, he alleged that the Defendants violated the TCPA by calling
consumers, who had asked the Defendants to place them on internal
do-not-call lists, and that they did so willfully and knowingly.
On InfoCision's motion, Judge Walker dismissed Counts C through F
as to InfoCision, the proceedings having been stayed as to the NRA
due to its suggestion of bankruptcy. Judge Walker determined that
the Plaintiff's factual allegations, if true, would suggest that
the NRA is not a "nonprofit organization" exempt from the TCPA, and
so declined to dismiss on that ground. Nevertheless, Judge Walker
concluded that the Plaintiff's allegations did not state or support
the reasonable inference that InfoCision engaged in "telephone
solicitation" with him because he alleged no facts to suggest that
InfoCision ever sought to sell him any goods or services. Moreover,
Judge Walker found that the Plaintiff's allegation that InfoCision
had called him on behalf of other entities in addition to the NRA
lacked any factual basis and so was implausible. Accordingly, Judge
Walker dismissed Counts C through F as to InfoCision.
The Plaintiff then requested limited discovery on the issue of
whether InfoCision's dialer system qualified as an ATDS in light of
the Supreme Court's recently issued opinion in Facebook, Inc. v.
Duguid, 141 S.Ct. 1163 (2021). At the same time, he proposed filing
a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") that would better conform to the
standard articulated in Facebook. The Plaintiff made clear that he
did not intend to file an amended complaint until after the court
had resolved his request for limited discovery. He requested a
90-day discovery period and proposed that the court set a deadline
for the filing of an amended complaint at 30 days following the
completion of the discovery period. The magistrate judge denied the
Plaintiff's request for discovery on July 4, 2021, and made no
mention of any deadline for him to file an amended complaint.
In July 2021, the Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings.
The Defendants argued that the remaining counts (A and B) did not
state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the
Plaintiff had not plausibly alleged that InfoCision called
consumers using an ATDS as defined by Facebook. In addition, the
NRA requested that the court lift the stay occasioned by its
bankruptcy filing and moved to dismiss Counts C through F, which
Judge Walker previously dismissed as to InfoCision.
In September 2021, the Plaintiff moved for leave to file the SAC.
He also requested oral argument on the issues raised by the motion
to amend the complaint and the motion for judgment on the
pleadings.
Discussion
I. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave To File Seconded Amended Complaint
Judge Walker notes that the court should freely give leave for a
party to amend its pleadings when justice so requires, Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(a). Judge Walker, thus, will grant a request to amend a
pleading unless "appropriate circumstances" counsel against doing
so, citing Klunder v. Brown Univ., 778 F.3d 24, 34 (1st Cir. 2015).
Circumstances that counsel against granting a request to amend
include undue delay, futility, a lack of due diligence or good
faith on the part of the movant, or where the opposing party
otherwise would be prejudiced by the amendment. So long as judgment
has not been entered, a court may grant leave to amend a pleading
even if some or all of a complaint has been dismissed.
1. Counts C through F
The Plaintiff's motion to amend the Complaint is futile with
respect to Counts C through F, Judge Walker holds. Where, as here,
a party seeks leave to amend before discovery is complete and
neither party has moved for summary judgment, an amendment's
futility turns on whether the proposed amended complaint sets forth
a general scenario which, if proven, would entitle the plaintiff to
relief against the defendant on some cognizable theory, Judge
Walker explains, citing Hatch v. Dep't for Child., Youth & Their
Fams., 274 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 2001).
Judge Walker previously determined that Counts C through F failed
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and nothing in
the SAC changes that calculus. In the Order granting InfoCision's
motion to dismiss, Judge Walker found that the Plaintiff had not
alleged sufficient facts to reasonably support the allegation that
InfoCision had called him while engaged in "telephone
solicitation." The Plaintiff merely alleged that InfoCision was
soliciting donations and membership in the NRA, which, Judge Walker
determined, are neither a good nor a service.
The Plaintiff's only additional allegations on that score are a few
cursory references to the Defendants selling goods and services and
a more detailed description of the benefits available to
dues-paying NRA members. But the former does nothing to
substantiate the Plaintiff's claims, and the latter fails to rebut
the conclusion that membership benefits--no matter how
valuable--simply are not purchased goods or services for the
purpose of the TCPA, Judge Walker holds.
The Plaintiff also adds allegations casting further doubt on
whether the NRA operates as a nonprofit, Judge Walker notes. But
these additional allegations do not address Judge Walker's reason
for dismissing Counts C through F in the FAC and are merely
cumulative of the Plaintiff's existing allegations regarding the
NRA's nonprofit status. In his previous order, Judge Walker granted
InfoCision's motion to dismiss because he found that the Plaintiff
did not plausibly allege that InfoCision contacted the Plaintiff
while engaged in "telemarketing."
At the same time, Judge Walker found that the factual allegations
in the FAC would, if true, permit a finding that the NRA does not
operate as a nonprofit. Thus, the additional allegations, like the
Plaintiff's other allegations intended to strengthen Counts C
through F, are futile.
2. Counts A and B
As it concerns Counts A and B, the Plaintiff's Motion to File a
Second Amended Complaint is neither futile nor unduly delayed;
accordingly, Judge Walker grants the Plaintiff's motion with
respect to these counts.
Judge Walker explains that the SAC is not futile insofar as it
alleges facts that, taken as true, permit the reasonable inference
that the Defendant is liable under the TCPA. Judge Walker adds that
in the SAC, the Plaintiff plausibly alleges that InfoCision called
him using an ATDS.
Judge Walker also finds that the SAC is not unduly delayed. Judge
Walker opines that the mere fact that a plaintiff delayed a request
to amend a complaint is an inadequate basis for a court to deny the
amendment. Judge Walker holds, among other things, that permitting
the Plaintiff to file the SAC would not prejudice the Defendants.
II. Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Because Judge Walker grants in part the Plaintiff's Motion to File
a Second Amended Complaint, the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings is denied as moot.
III. NRA's Motion to Lift Stay and Dismiss
For the reasons discussed in the Order granting InfoCision's motion
to dismiss, the Plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim for
relief against the NRA as to Counts C through F, Judge Walker
holds. Accordingly, and as the NRA is no longer undergoing
bankruptcy, Judge Walker lifts the stay as to the NRA and dismiss
those counts.
IV. Plaintiff's Motion for Oral Argument
Because he is able to resolve these motions on the basis of the
parties' submissions, Judge Walker sees no need to hold oral
argument, and so denies the Plaintiff's request.
Conclusion
The Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint
is granted as it relates to Counts A and B and denied as it relates
to Counts C through F. The Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings and to Lift the Stay is granted with regard to lifting
the stay, denied as it relates to Counts A and B, and granted as it
relates to Counts C through F. The Plaintiff's Motion for Oral
Argument is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 20, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2uz3bph9 from Leagle.com.
NAVIENT CORP: $35MM Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for March 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
LORD ABBETT AFFILIATED FUND, INC.,
et al., Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NAVIENT CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
C.A. No. 16-112-MN
Judge Maryellen Noreika
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION;
(II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND
LITIGATION EXPENSES
This notice is for:
(1) All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Navient Corporation's ("Navient") common stock or Navient call
options, or sold Navient put options, from April 17, 2014 through
September 29, 2015 (the "Exchange Act Class"). For the avoidance
of doubt, the Exchange Act Class includes all persons and entities
who received shares as part of Navient's formation through a
spin-off from Sallie Mae—and who were damaged thereby; and
(2) All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Navient's 5.000% Senior Notes due 2020 (CUSIP 63938CAA6), 5.875%
Senior Notes due 2024 (CUSIP 63938CAB4), and 5.875% Senior Notes
due 2021 (CUSIP 63938CAC2) from November 6, 2014 through December
28, 2015, inclusive—and who were damaged thereby (the "Securities
Act Class," and together with the Exchange Act Class, the
"Classes").
Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Classes by
definition and others are excluded pursuant to request. The full
definition of the Classes including a complete description of who
is excluded from the Classes is set forth in the full Settlement
Notice referred to below.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware (the "Court"), that lead plaintiffs
and class representatives Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., Lord
Abbett Equity Trust–Lord Abbett Calibrated Mid Cap Value Fund,
Lord Abbett Bond-Debenture Fund, Inc., and Lord Abbett Investment
Trust–Lord Abbett High Yield Fund (collectively, "Lead
Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the Court-certified
Classes in the above-captioned securities class action (the
"Action"), have reached a proposed settlement of the Action with
defendants Navient, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul, John Kane,
William M. Diefenderfer, III, Ann Torre Bates, Diane Suitt
Gilleland, Linda Mills, Barry A. Munitz, Steven L. Shapiro, Jane J.
Thompson, Barry L. Williams, Barclays Capital Inc., Credit Suisse
Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman, Sachs &
Co. (n/k/a Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC), J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (n/k/a BofA
Securities, Inc.), RBC Capital Markets, LLC, RBS Securities Inc.
(n/k/a NatWest Markets Securities Inc.), and Wells Fargo
Securities, LLC (collectively, "Defendants") for $35,000,000 in
cash that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action.
A hearing will be held on March 17, 2022 at 2:00 p.m., before the
Honorable Maryellen Noreika either in person at the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware, J. Caleb Boggs Federal
Building, Courtroom 4A, 844 North King Street, Wilmington, DE
19801-3555, or by telephone or videoconference (in the discretion
of the Court) to, among other things: (i) determine whether the
proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the
Parties' Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated November 16,
2021 (the "Stipulation") is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the
Classes, and should be finally approved by the Court; (ii)
determine whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice
against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the
Stipulation (and in this Notice) should be granted; (iii) determine
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair
and reasonable; (iv) determine whether Lead Counsel's motion for
attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses (including an award to Lead
Plaintiffs) should be approved; and (v) consider any other matters
that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with
the Settlement.
If you are a member of one or both of the Classes, your rights will
be affected by the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in
the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the full
printed Notice of (I) Proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation;
(II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Litigation Expenses (the "Settlement Notice") and the Proof of
Claim and Release Form (the "Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of
these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Navient
Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box
91402, Seattle, WA 98111, 1-833-358-1847,
info@NavientSecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies of the Settlement
Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website for
the Action, www.NavientSecuritiesLitigation.com.
If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to receive a
payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form
postmarked (if mailed), or online through the case website,
www.NavientSecuritiesLitigation.com, no later than April 13, 2022.
If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form,
you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net
proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by
any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees
and expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead
Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no
later than February 24, 2022, in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Settlement Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Navient, any
other Defendants in the Action, or their counsel regarding this
notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement,
or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be
directed the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel.
Requests for the Settlement Notice and Claim Form should be made
to:
Navient Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91402
Seattle, WA 98111
1-833-358-1847
info@NavientSecuritiesLitigation.com
www.NavientSecuritiesLitigation.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Settlement Notice and Claim
Form, may be made to Lead Counsel:
Jeremy P. Robinson, Esq.
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
1-800-380-8496
settlements@blbglaw.com
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
District of Delaware
NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: 2d Cir. Tosses George Lehman Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Annual Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 23, 2021, that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has dismissed a
securities class action lawsuit led by George Lehman and Insured
Benefit Plans, Inc.
On February 14, 2018, plaintiff Jeevesh Khanna, commenced an action
in the Southern District of New York, against Ohr Pharmaceutical,
Inc. (which was the name of the Company prior to the completion of
the merger with NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger
and Reorganization entered into on January 2, 2019, as amended,
pursuant to which (i) Ohr Acquisition Corp., a subsidiary of Ohr,
merged with and into Legacy NeuBase, with Legacy NeuBase (renamed
as "NeuBase Corporation") continuing as a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Ohr and the surviving corporation of the merger and (ii) Ohr was
renamed as "NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc." and several current and
former officers and directors, alleging that they violated federal
securities laws between June 24, 2014 and January 4, 2018.
On August 7, 2018, the lead plaintiffs, now George Lehman and
Insured Benefit Plans, Inc., filed an amended complaint, stating
the class period to be April 8, 2014 through January 4, 2018. The
plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their complaint
but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek to
maintain the action as a class action and to recover damages on
behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Ohr common stock during the putative class period and
purportedly suffered financial harm as a result.
"We and the individuals dispute these claims and intend to defend
the matter vigorously," according to NeuBase.
On September 17, 2018, Ohr filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On September 20, 2019, the district court entered an order granting
the defendants' motion to dismiss.
On October 23, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of
that order dismissing the action and other related orders by the
district court. After full briefing and oral argument, on October
9, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a
summary order affirming the district court's order granting the
motion to dismiss and remanding the action to the district court to
make a determination on the record related to plaintiffs' request
for leave to file an amended complaint.
On October 16, 2020, the district court requested the parties'
positions as to how they proposed to proceed in light of the Second
Circuit's decision. After letter briefing on this issue and
plaintiffs' alternative request for leave to file a second amended
complaint, on November 16, 2020, the district court denied
plaintiffs' request to amend and dismissed with prejudice
plaintiffs' claims.
On December 16, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that
order denying plaintiffs leave to amend. On December 16, 2021, the
Second Circuit affirmed the decision and order of the district
court denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, thereby
dismissing the appeal and action in its entirety.
Pittsburgh, Pa.-based NeuBase Therapeutics is a biotechnology
company focused on significantly reducing the burden of untreatable
morbidity and mortality across the globe caused by rare and common
diseases.
On July 12, 2019, Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
completed a Merger with NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware
corporation in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan
of Merger Reorganization entered into on January 2, 2019.
NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Suit over Merger Deal Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. continues to defend against the case,
Wheby v. Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al., which challenges the
Company's merger deal with Ohr, NeuBase disclosed in its Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2021,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 23,
2021.
On March 20, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for District of Delaware naming as
defendants Ohr and its board of directors, Legacy NeuBase and Ohr
Acquisition Corp., captioned Wheby v. Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00541-UNA (the "Wheby Action"). The
plaintiffs in the Wheby Action allege that the preliminary joint
proxy/prospectus statement filed by Ohr with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 8, 2019 contained false and misleading
statements and omitted material information in violation of Section
14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, and further that the individual defendants are liable
for those alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.
The complaint in the Wheby Action has not been served on, nor was
service waived by, any of the named defendants in that action. The
action seeks, among other things, to rescind the Merger or an award
of damages, and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees and
expenses.
The defendants dispute the claims raised in the Wheby Action.
"Management believes that the likelihood of an adverse decision
from the sole remaining action is unlikely; however, the litigation
could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management's
resources and attention, which could harm our business and the
value of our common stock," according to NeuBase.
Pittsburgh, Pa.-based NeuBase Therapeutics is a biotechnology
company focused on significantly reducing the burden of untreatable
morbidity and mortality across the globe caused by rare and common
diseases.
On July 12, 2019, Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
completed a Merger with NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware
corporation in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan
of Merger Reorganization entered into on January 2, 2019.
NEW BALANCE: Faces New "Made in the USA" Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a class
of plaintiffs led by Matthew Cristostomo have filed a class action
lawsuit against New Balance Athletics, Inc.
Why: Plaintiffs claim New Balance sells sneakers that are
prominently marked as "Made in the USA" when they actually
outsource up to 30% of their components.
Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts federal
court.
Sneakers in New Balance Athletics "Made in the USA" line are not
actually entirely made in the United States, a new class action
lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiffs, led by Matthew Cristostomo, claim New Balance sells
certain sneakers that have up to 30% of their components made
outside the United States, despite being prominently marketed as
"Made in the USA."
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requires companies who claim its
products are made in the United States be either "all" or
"virtually all" made in the country, according to the class action
lawsuit.
"The Sneakers do not satisfy the FTC's requirements for a ‘Made
in the USA' product," the class action lawsuit states.
"Specifically, imported parts and/or foreign labor make up at least
30 percent of any one of the Sneakers."
Meanwhile, Cristostomo claims himself and other plaintiffs would
not have purchased, or would have paid less for, the sneakers had
they known they were not actually made in the United States.
"Plaintiffs and members of the Classes were accordingly injured by
the price premium they paid for the Sneakers due to Defendant's
misrepresentation that the Sneakers were made in the United States
when they were not," the class action lawsuit states.
CEO Admitted Sneaker Soles Not Made Domestically, Class Action
Alleges
Cristostomo claims a number of New Balance sneakers have either an
American flag or the words "Made in USA" embroidered onto their
tongues while others are in a category on the company's web shop
named "Footwear Made in the USA."
This, despite New Balance's CEO even previously admitting that the
soles of its sneakers are not made domestically, the class action
lawsuit alleges.
New Balance does include a "small print disclaimer" on its website
and the underside of its packaging acknowledging the sneakers with
the "Made in USA" claims only "contain a domestic value of 70% or
greater," according to the class action lawsuit; however,
Cristostomo argues this is not enough to undo its alleged false and
misleading advertising.
"No reasonable consumer would expect that small print language on
the underside of a packaging or hid in assorted places on a website
contain language inconsistent with the representations that the
Sneakers were ‘Made in the USA,'" the class action lawsuit
states.
Cristostomo claims New Balance is guilty of, among other things,
fraud and unjust enrichment, and in violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act and New York General Business Law, among other
individual state acts.
Cristostomo wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who
purchased New Balance footwear that was not entirely made in the
United States.
Plaintiffs are demanding a jury trial and requesting injunctive
relief along with compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for
themselves and all class members.
New Balance faced a similar class action lawsuit back in 2017 after
consumers claimed the company falsely marketed its sneakers as
"Made in the USA."
Have you purchased New Balance sneakers prominently marked as "Made
in the USA"? Let us know in the comments!
The plaintiffs are represented by James J. Reardon, Jr. of Reardon
Scanlon LLP and L. Timothy Fisher, Sean L. Litteral, Max S.
Roberts, Matthew A. Girardi and Julian C. Diamond of Bursor &
Fisher, P.A.
The Class Action Lawsuit is Cristostomo, et al. v. New Balance
Athletics, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-12095, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts. [GN]
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Class Cert Hearing Reset for March 30, 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Black, et al., v.
Occidental Petroleum Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00243
(D. Wyo.), the Hon. Judge Nancy D. Freudenthal entered an order
vacating class certification hearing on March 29 at 1:30 p.m. and
resetting for March 30, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.
The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Antitrust.
Occidental Petroleum is an American company engaged in hydrocarbon
exploration in the United States, the Middle East, and Colombia as
well as petrochemical manufacturing in the United States, Canada,
and Chile.[CC]
ORGANOGENESIS HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Organogenesis Holdings, Inc. ("Organogenesis" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: ORGO) in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Organogenesis
securities between March 17, 2021 and October 11, 2021, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until February 8,
2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
On October 12, 2021, Value Investors Club issued a report alleging
issues at Organogenesis Holdings, Inc., indicating that the wound
care medical company has been improperly billing the federal
government for $250 million annually. The Company also set the
price for its new wound covering, Affinity, "exorbitantly high,"
which Medicare reimbursed, while making the product lucrative for
doctors to use through large rebates.
On this news, shares of Organogenesis fell over 18% in intraday
trading on October 12, 2021.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Organogenesis shares and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or
Alexandra Raymond by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone
at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
PAYSAFE LIMITED: Kessler Topaz Reminds of February 8 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs
investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed
against Paysafe Limited f/k/a Foley Trasimene Acquisition Corp. II.
The action charges Paysafe with violations of the federal
securities laws, including omissions and fraudulent
misrepresentations relating to the company's business, operations,
and prospects. As a result of Paysafe's materially misleading
statements to the public, Paysafe investors have suffered
significant losses.
CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:
James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Toll Free (844) 887-9500 or
Email at info@ktmc.com
PAYSAFE'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
Paysafe, headquartered in the United Kingdom, provides digital
commerce solutions to online businesses, merchants, and consumers
through its Paysafe Network worldwide which, among other things,
enable users to upload, store, withdraw, and pay funds and from
virtual accounts.
On March 30, 2021, Paysafe became a public entity via business
combination with FTAC. Then, on November 11, 2021, before the
market opened, Paysafe announced that it was revising its revenue
guidance for the full year 2021 downward. Paysafe attributed the
revision to "[g]ambling regulations and softness in key European
markets and performance challenges impacting the Digital Wallet
segment" and "[t]he modified scope and timing of new eCommerce
customer agreements relative to the Company's original expectations
for these agreements."
On this news, the Paysafe's share price fell $3.03 per share, or
more than 40%, to close at $4.24 per share on November 11, 2021.
WHAT CAN I DO?
Paysafe investors may, no later than February 8, 2022, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Paysafe investors who have suffered
significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more
information.
WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?
A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.
ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. At the end of the day, we have succeeded if the bad
guys pay up, and if you recover your assets. The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com
URL: http://ktmc.com[GN]
PEOPLEASE LLC: Court Denies Bids for Arbitration in Espinoza Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Beth Bloom of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida issued an omnibus order denying motions to
compel arbitration in the lawsuit styled DEMIS ESPINOZA, on behalf
of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PEOPLEASE, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-22684-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes (S.D. Fla.).
The cause is before the Court upon Defendant Managed Labor
Solutions, LLC's ("MLS") Motion to Stay Case and Compel Arbitration
or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Class Action
Complaint ("MLS Motion"), and Defendant Peoplease LLC's Motion to
Compel Arbitration and Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint or,
Alternatively, to Stay Proceedings ("Peoplease Motion").
Background
On June 1, 2021, the Plaintiff initiated this putative class action
against Defendants MLS and Peoplease, arising from their purported
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970. According to
the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff was previously employed by MLS
through Peoplease between Sept. 18, 2019, and Nov. 13, 2019. MLS
and Peoplease terminated the Plaintiff's employment on Nov. 13,
2019. Thereafter, in October 2020, the Plaintiff again applied for
employment with MLS.
On Oct. 19, 2020, as a condition of hire, the Plaintiff authorized
MLS to obtain his consumer report. On Oct. 20, 2020, MLS and
Peoplease ordered the Plaintiff's consumer report from Crimcheck, a
consumer reporting agency. On Oct. 23, 2020, Crimcheck provided MLS
and Peoplease with the Plaintiff's consumer report, which scored
the Plaintiff as "questionable" based upon his then-pending
criminal charges. Crimcheck communicated to MLS and/or Peoplease
that Plaintiff was ineligible to hire, causing MLS to reject the
Plaintiff's employment application and MLS and/or Peoplease to
confirm his ineligibility in their computer system.
The Plaintiff was rejected for employment on Oct. 23, 2020. He then
contacted MLS's corporate office to inquire into the status of his
application and was informed that his application for employment
was rejected due to his background check. He did not receive notice
or a copy of his background check from MLS prior to his rejection.
Nor did he authorize Peoplease to procure his consumer report.
Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff asserts three claims for
relief under the FCRA: Failure to Make Proper Disclosure in
Violation 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i), against Peoplease
(Count I); Failure to Obtain Authorization in Violation of 15
U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii), against Peoplease (Count II);
and Failure to Provide Adverse Action Notice in Violation of 15
U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3)(A), against MLS (Count III).
The Defendants now seek to stay these proceedings and compel the
Plaintiff to arbitrate the claims alleged in the Amended Complaint
on an individual, non-class basis. Specifically, the Defendants
contend that when the Plaintiff was hired by MLS through Peoplease
on Sept. 18, 2019, he signed a Notice and Agreement of
Co-Employment, which includes a Dispute Resolution and Arbitration
clause governing the instant action.
The Plaintiff takes the opposing position, arguing that there is no
plausible basis to compel him to arbitrate his FRCA claims against
the Defendants.
Legal Standard
The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") provides that pre-dispute
agreements to arbitrate "evidencing a transaction involving
commerce" are "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable save upon such
grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any
contract." 9 U.S.C. Section 2. The FAA reflects "a liberal federal
policy favoring arbitration." AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563
U.S. 333, 339 (2011).
Discussion
Judge Bloom notes that under both federal and Florida law, there
are three factors for the court to consider in determining a
party's right to arbitrate: (1) a written agreement exists between
the parties containing an arbitration clause; (2) an arbitrable
issue exists; and (3) the right to arbitration has not been waived,
citing Sims v. Clarendon Nat. Ins. Co., 336 F.Supp.2d 1311, 1326
(S.D. Fla. 2004) (citing Marine Envtl. Partners, Inc. v. Johnson,
863 So.2d 423, 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) and Seifert v. U.S. Home
Corp., 750 So.2d 633 (Fla. 1999)).
The crux of the parties' dispute is whether the Plaintiff's FCRA
claims fall within the scope of the Arbitration Clause, and
therefore, whether an arbitrable issue exists.
The Defendants argue that the Arbitration Clause expressly provides
that the parties agree to utilize binding arbitration as the sole
and exclusive means to resolve all disputes that may arise between
the Plaintiff, MLS, and/or PLC, including disputes regarding
termination of employment and compensation.
The Plaintiff responds that his FCRA claims are non-arbitrable for
several reasons. Among other reasons, the Plaintiff contends that
his FCRA claims are not a foreseeable or immediate consequence of
his prior co-employment relationship, i.e., 'contractual duties'
with Peoplease and MLS.
Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties'
briefings, the Court is not persuaded that the Plaintiff's FCRA
claims are arbitrable. While the Arbitration Clause includes broad
language of arbitrability and expressly includes disputes based
upon federal law, such as the one at issue here, the Court cannot
conclude that the Plaintiff's Employment Agreement with the
Defendants compels him to arbitrate the FCRA claims asserted in
this action.
Indeed, the most ordinary and sensible interpretation of the
Employment Agreement is that it contemplates a co-employment
relationship between the parties, Judge Bloom finds. For example,
the Employment Agreement, in which both MLS and Peoplease agreed to
be responsible for various aspects of the Plaintiff's employment.
Judge Bloom finds that the Plaintiff's FCRA claims do not relate to
his prior employment with the Defendants and transpired almost one
year later when he was re-applying for employment with MLS. While
the Plaintiff's Employment Agreement may be operable regarding
claims related to his first employment period, the parties'
co-employment relationship had ended. Here, in order to find the
Plaintiff's claims to be arbitrable, they must be a foreseeable
consequence of his prior co-employment relationship with the
Defendants, Judge Bloom holds, citing Calderon v. Sixt Rent a Car,
LLC, 5 F.4th 1204, 1213 (11th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, the Court
finds that the Plaintiff did not agree to arbitrate his FCRA claims
with the Defendants by virtue of the subject Employment Agreement.
Conclusion
Accordingly, it is ordered and adjudged that the motions are
denied. Defendant MLS will file an Answer to the Amended Complaint
no later than Jan. 3, 2022.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 20, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3xe8hrey from Leagle.com.
PHARMACIELO LTD: Calif. Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on
December 8, 2021, Judge Philip S. Gutierrez of the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California dismissed, with
prejudice, a suit against a Canadian cannabis manufacturer (the
"Company"), alleging that the Company failed to disclose material
information about its facilities in Colombia and its transactions
with other companies in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In re Pharmacielo Ltd. Sec.
Litig., No. 20-2182-PSG (C.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2021). Plaintiffs --
whose complaint was once dismissed -- amended their complaint to
bolster their allegations based on an assortment of Company
statements regarding its facilities and expansion plans that
plaintiffs alleged were designed to artificially inflate the
Company's stock price. The Court dismissed the amended complaint
for failure to plead falsity or materiality and did so with
prejudice because any amendments would be futile based on their
"failed attempt to remedy" the deficiencies of the prior
complaint.
Plaintiffs' allegations were based on several Company statements
between June 2019 and March 2020 related to: (i) the soil quality
of the Company's property in Colombia (the "Property") that housed
a cannabis cultivating facility, and the Company's characterization
of that facility and plans for the facility; (ii) third-party
transactions that ultimately did not materialize the way that the
Company had announced them; and (iii) the Company's failed attempt
to enter the cannabis market in Peru.
The Court rejected the claims for failure to allege materiality or
falsity, and further noted that plaintiffs failed to allege any new
facts in the amended complaint and instead added largely irrelevant
facts, relied on vague references, and repeated arguments that the
Court already rejected when dismissing the prior complaint.
Alleged Misstatements and Omissions Regarding the Property: The
Court rejected the claims based on the Company's statements
regarding the Property. First, plaintiffs claimed that the
Company's advertisement that the Property "produc[ed] some of the
world's purest cannabis," "[w]ith fertile soil, perfect equatorial
sunlight, and state-of-the-art science and technology" was false
because the Property was "far from perfect," partially situated on
a floodplain, and contaminated with mold. But, according to the
Court, plaintiffs failed to allege how these issues impacted the
Company's business in any way, particularly because the Company
only manufactured cannabis extract oil, not raw cannabis crops
(which could potentially be affected by the floodplain and
contaminant issues), and plaintiffs offered no allegations
suggesting that the issues with the Property impacted the Company's
end product. Second, plaintiffs alleged that the Company's
statement that it was "successfully scaling up its Colombian
operation and expanding capacity," premised in part on the
construction of a new Research, Technology, and Processing Centre
on the Property by late 2019 was false because the construction
faced significant delays. The Court held that statements regarding
anticipated construction dates were not actionable as a matter of
law because they were forward-looking statements of corporate
optimism. Third, plaintiffs claimed that the Company's statement
that the facility on the Property was its "main" facility was
materially misleading because that facility was in fact the "only"
one in use. The Court disagreed, holding that plaintiffs failed to
allege that the distinction between "main" and "only" was material
and that it would have changed a reasonable investor's opinion of
the Company's value.
Alleged Misstatements and Omissions Regarding Third-Party
Transactions: The Court also dismissed the claims based on the
Company's statements related to two third-party agreements. First,
plaintiffs alleged that the Company's failure to disclose that an
agreement with a third-party multi-state distributor was a related
party transaction was per se a material omission. The Court
rejected the argument because plaintiffs failed to cite authority
that nondisclosure of a related party transaction was per se
actionable and noted also that plaintiffs failed to allege that the
transaction was a related party transaction under Canadian law that
governed the Company's disclosure obligations. Second, plaintiffs
alleged that the Company misled investors to think that an
agreement with a third-party distributor was a "significant
opportunity" to enter the German market when that third party was
"nearly insolvent and led by a CEO with a history of running
companies into the ground," and the agreement ultimately did not
result in the benefits advertised by the Company of bringing the
Company's products into Germany. In dismissing the claims based on
both third-party agreements at issue, the Court held that
allegations that an agreement did not go as planned were
insufficient to demonstrate a material misstatement or omission.
Alleged Omissions Regarding Entry to the Peruvian Market: Finally,
plaintiffs alleged that the Company's statement that it had "laid
the groundwork" and was "looking forward to expand its presence
throughout Latin America" was false because the Company had failed
to comply with the bidding process to supply medical cannabis into
Peru and knew that it would lose its bid. The Court dismissed this
argument because plaintiffs failed to allege how the "loss of one
bid in Peru rendered misleading [the Company's] optimistic
statements about then-current or future expansion in Latin
America."
Because the Court believed that any amendment would be futile based
on the substance and nature of plaintiffs' amended allegations, the
Court dismissed the action with prejudice.
The case is In re Pharmacielo Ltd. Sec. Litig. [GN]
PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Faces Doe Class Action Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES, a California
Corporation, Case No. 21STCV46178 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Dec. 20, 2021) is a data breach class action brought on behalf of
individuals whose private, sensitive personal identifiable
information (PII) and private medical information (PMI), including
patient names, dates of birth, addresses, insurance identification
numbers, and clinical data, such as diagnosis, treatment, 6
prescription information, was exposed because of the failure of
Planned Parenthood Los Angeles ("PPLA") to safeguard its healthcare
consumers' privacy.
As a result of PPLA's alleged failure to maintain adequate data
security, between approximately October 9, 2021 and October 17,
2021, a data breach occurred in which an unauthorized party or
parties accessed PPLA's computer network, installed ransomware, and
exfiltrated patient files.
The PII and PMI of over 400,000 patients was compromised in the
attack. Moreover, despite learning of the data breach on or about
October 17, 2021, PPLA did not begin to notify affected individuals
until November 30, 2021. The PII and PMI remains in the possession
of the unauthorized party or parties.
PPLA's failure to adequately safeguard the PII and PMI of its
patients and failure to timely notify them of the data breach
placed those healthcare consumers at considerable risk of identity
theft and fraud, causing the affected individuals to expend time,
money, and resources addressing their damaged security interests
and even their reputations. Plaintiffs and class members, as
defined below, now face a significant risk of medical-related
identity theft and fraud, financial fraud, and other
identity-related fraud presently and into the indefinite future,
says the suit.
This is particularly the case for the sensitive patient information
kept by PPLA, which provides not only abortion and other family
planning procedures, but also such health services as testing for
sexually transmitted diseases, emergency contraception, and cancer
screenings. Because PPLA provides these highly private services,
and because PPLA is a lightning rod for public debate about
abortion restrictions, the exfiltrated information is of the utmost
sensitivity and subject to potential exploitation.
The Plaintiffs have resided in Los Angeles, California, and have
obtained healthcare services from, has transacted business with,
and has provided PII and PMI to PPLA.
PPLA operates approximately 20 healthcare facilities in and around
Los Angeles, at which PPLA provides a panoply of health-related
services, and particularly in the area of reproductive
healthcare.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Julian Hammond, Esq.
Polina Brandler, Esq.
Ari Cherniak, Esq.
HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
11780 W Sample Rd., Suite 103
Coral Springs, FL 33065
Telephone: (310) 601-6766
Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com
acherniak@hammondlawpc.com
PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 24 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Playtika Holding Corp. ("Playtika" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: PLTK) in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Playtika securities:
(i) pursuant and/or traceable to the January 15, 2021 IPO; or (ii)
between January 15, 2021 and November 2, 2021, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period") . Investors have until January 24, 2022 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
On or about January 15, 2021, Playtika conducted its IPO, selling
approximately 18.5 million shares of common stock priced at $27.00
per share.
Then, on May 11, 2021, Playtika announced its financial results for
the first quarter of 2021. While the Company's revenue beat
expectations by $57.97 million, its GAAP earnings per share ("EPS")
of $0.09 missed consensus estimates by $0.04.
On this news, Playtika's stock price fell $0.93 per share, or
3.47%, to close at $25.89 per share on May 11, 2021.
Then, on November 3, 2021, Playtika announced its financial results
for the third quarter of 2021. Among other items, Playtika reported
revenue of $635.9 million, missing consensus estimates by $26.07
million, and GAAP EPS of $0.20, missing consensus estimates by
$0.05.
On this news, Playtika's stock price fell $6.80, or 23%, to close
at $22.72 per share on November 3, 2021, thereby injuring investors
further.
The complaint filed alleges that 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 made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
Company's year-over-year total costs and costs related to sales &
marketing and research & development were on track to rise
significantly by the third quarter of 2021; (ii) the success of the
Company's game portfolio was less sustainable than the Company had
represented; (iii) the foregoing issues were likely to negatively
impact the Company's revenue and earnings; and (iv) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Playtika shares and suffered
a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Alexandra Raymond by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
REDWIRE CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 15 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Redwire Corporation ("Redwire" or the "Company")
(NYSE: RDW) in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Redwire securities between August
11, 2021 and November 14, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until February 15, 2022 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
On November 10, 2021, Redwire announced that it would postpone the
release of its third quarter earnings results. The Company "was
notified by an employee of potential accounting issues at a
business subunit," and the Audit Committee was investigating the
allegations.
On this news, Redwire's stock price fell $1.92, or 16%, to close at
$9.99 per share on November 10, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
Then, on November 15, 2021, Redwire stated that it could not timely
file its quarterly report for the period ended September 30, 2021.
Due to the pending investigation into the accounting issues at a
business subunit, "the Company has not been able to finalize its
financial statements or its assessment of the effectiveness of its
disclosure controls and procedures and any impact" on the report.
On this news, Redwire's stock price fell $0.93, or 8.3%, over two
consecutive trading sessions to close at $10.32 per share on
November 16, 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
that: (1) that there were accounting issues at one of Redwire's
subunits; (2) that, as a result, there were additional material
weaknesses in Redwire's internal control over financial reporting;
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 Redwire shares and suffered
a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Alexandra Raymond by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you. [GN]
REHABILITATION CENTER: Court Issues Final Judgment in Valentine
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
issued a Final Judgment in the lawsuit entitled TERRY VALENTINE,
individually, and on behalf of all other similarly-situated
employees of DEFENDANTS in the State of California, Plaintiff v.
REHABILITATION CENTER OF SANTA MONICA HOLDING COMPANY GP, LLC;
REHABILITATION CENTER OF SANTA MONICA OPERATING COMPANY, LP;
MARINER HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT COMPANY; MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC.;
MARINER HEALTH CENTRAL, INC. and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01300-JAK-JC (C.D. Cal.).
The Parties reached a settlement subject to Court approval as
represented in the Settlement Agreement that was filed. Following a
final approval hearing, which was conducted pursuant to the
previous order granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement (the "Preliminary Approval
Order"), the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement and Award of Attorneys' Fees, and Costs, and Class
Representative Incentive Payment was granted (the "Final Approval
Order").
Therefore, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the Court has
jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action, the Settlement
Class, and the Defendants.
As a result of this Judgment, the Plaintiff and the Settlement
Class are barred from prosecuting any claims against the Defendants
and the Released Parties covered by the releases set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.
This Judgment is the Final Judgment as to the Plaintiff and the
Settlement Class and the Released Claims against the Released
Parties. The claims of the Plaintiff and of the Settlement Class
are dismissed with prejudice.
Without affecting the finality of this Order for purposes of
appeal, the Court retains jurisdiction over this matter for the
purposes of enforcing the Settlement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Judgment dated Dec. 20, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8e4xdd from Leagle.com.
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of February 15 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs
investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed
against Robinhood Markets, Inc. ("Robinhood"). (NASDAQ: HOOD). The
action charges Robinhood with violations of the federal securities
laws, including omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations
relating to the company's business, operations, and prospects. As a
result of Robinhoods's materially misleading statements to the
public, Robinhood investors have suffered significant losses.
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: February 15, 2022
CLASS PERIOD: July 30, 2021 through December 17, 2021
CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:
James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Toll Free (844) 887-9500 or
Email at info@ktmc.com
ROBINHOOD'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
Robinhood, headquartered Menlo Park, California, is a financial
services company that operates a mobile app which offers
commission-free trading of stocks and allows users to invest in
stocks, exchange-traded funds, and cryptocurrencies.
On July 30, 2021, Robinhood conducted its initial public offering
("IPO") and issued 55 million shares at $38 per share, anticipating
proceeds of over $2 billion. Then, on October 26, 2021, Robinhood
announced its 2021 third-quarter financial results. The report
revealed that Robinhood's third-quarter total net revenue fell
short of Wall Street estimates by nearly $73 million, as crypto
transaction revenue totaled $51 million, a 78% plunge compared to
the preceding quarter. Robinhood also reported declines in its
monthly active users ("MAUs"), funded accounts, assets under
custody, and average revenue per user. Following this news,
Robinhood's stock fell $4.13 per share, or 10.44%, to close at
$35.44 per share on October 27, 2021.
Then, on November 8, 2021, Robinhood disclosed that it had suffered
a "data security incident" on November 3, 2021, admitting that an
"unauthorized third party" had obtained email addresses for
approximately five million users and the full names of a different
group of about two million users, indicating that the attack
potentially affected nearly 40% of Robinhood's MAUs. Following this
news, Robinhood's stock declined over 3% on November 9, 2021 to
close at $36.70 per share, before then falling another 6% to close
at $34.49 the very next day. As of the date the initial complaint
was filed, Robinhood's stock had traded as low as $17.08 per share,
or over 55% below the $38 IPO price.
WHAT CAN I DO?
Robinhood investors may, no later than February 15, 2022, seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class
through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Robinhood investors who have
suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire
more information.
WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?
A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.
ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. At the end of the day, we have succeeded if the bad
guys pay up, and if you recover your assets. The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]
SEQUITUR ENERGY: Delaughter Seeks Drilling Consultants' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE DELAUGHTER Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. SEQUITUR ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC, Case No. 7:21-cv-00242
(W.D. Tex., Dec. 17, 2021) seeks to recover overtime compensation
and all other available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938("FLSA").
Sequitur was formerly the employer of the Plaintiff and others
similarly situated. The Plaintiff worked as a Drilling Consultant
for Sequitur from December of 2016 until May of 2021.
While employed by Sequitur, the Plaintiff was allegedly
misclassified as an independent contractor, despite the fact that
he worked full time for Sequitur, and virtually every aspect of his
job was controlled by Sequitur. Sequitur misclassified Plaintiff as
an independent contractor to avoid paying employment taxes,
benefits and overtime.
During his time with Sequitur, Plaintiff typically worked 100 hours
per week. The Plaintiff received a day rate regardless of the
number of hours he worked in a given day or week, and never
received overtime pay, the lawsuit says.
Because Plaintiff and other Class Members are paid a day rate, and
because their schedules are set by Sequitur, the Class Members are
not given any opportunity to share in the profit and/or loss of
their services. They are not allowed the freedom to take or reject
assignments -- instead they must report to Sequitur's rigs as
ordered to do by Sequitur, the suit adds.
Sequitur is an oil and gas production company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Borsellino, Esq.
BORSELLINO, P.C.
1020 Macon St., Suite 15
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
3267 Bee Cave Rd., Ste. 107
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (817) 908-9861
Facsimile: (817) 394-2412
E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com
SHAMROCK FOODS: Court Issues $295K Final Judgment in Arreola Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
issued a Final Judgment in the lawsuit titled STEVEN A. ARREOLA, an
individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SHAMROCK FOODS COMPANY; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04123-JAK-MAA (C.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff Steven A. Arreola's Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement and Motion for Approval of Attorney's Fees and
Costs were heard on Aug. 30, 2021. Following the hearing, the
Plaintiff's Motions were granted.
Therefore, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Court
having entered an order granting Final Approval of this Settlement
enters final judgment in favor of Plaintiff Steven A. Arreola and
the Class Members in the amount of $295,000.
The Parties will bear their own costs and attorney's fees, except
as otherwise provided in the Settlement Agreement and the Final
Approval Order.
The Plaintiff and each Class Member has released the Released
Claims against the Defendant and all the Released Parties as set
forth in the Settlement Agreement.
District Judge John A. Kronstadt notes that this document will
constitute a Final Judgment for the purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
This Judgment is intended to be a final disposition of the action
in its entirety.
Judgment is entered approving the terms of the Settlement.
The Court retains jurisdiction to consider all further applications
with respect to the enforcement of the Settlement Agreement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Final Judgment dated Dec. 20, 2021,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p85x364 from Leagle.com.
SLEEP NUMBER: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of February 14 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 24
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Sleep Number Corporation (NASDAQ:
SNBR) between February 18, 2021 and July 20, 2021, 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 February 14, 2022.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Sleep Number securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Sleep Number class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2225.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 February 14, 2022.
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. Many of these firms do not actually
litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel.
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Sleep Number had suffered a
severe disruption in its supply chain for foam as a result of
Winter Storm Uri; (2) Sleep Number did not have in place the supply
chain flexibility, redundancies, and fail-safes, as had been
represented to investors, sufficient to offset the foam supply
disruption caused by Winter Storm Uri; (3) because foam was a
necessary component for Sleep Number's production of its primary
mattress products, Sleep Number's ability to timely fulfill
customer orders had been materially impaired; (4) thus, Sleep
Number was unable to meet surging customer demand for Sleep
Number's products; and (5) as a result, Sleep Number had been
forced to delay mattress shipments to end consumers, pushing
millions of dollars' worth of sales into subsequent quarters and
negatively impacting Sleep Number's financial results. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join the Sleep Number class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2225.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
SLEEP NUMBER: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of February 14 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has filed against Sleep Number
Corporation ("Sleep Number" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SNBR) in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Sleep Number securities between February 18, 2021 and July
20, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased the shares of Sleep Number Corporation
and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in Sleep Number Corporation, you may,
no later than February 14, 2022, request that the Court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in Sleep
Number Corporation.
On April 21, 2021, Sleep Number released its first quarter 2021
financial results, missing consensus sales estimates as a result of
supply chain disruptions due to Winter Storm Uri in February 2021.
Specifically, "more than $50 million of deliveries (two weeks)
shifted out of the quarter due to temporary foam supply
constraints," representing nearly 9% of the Company's entire sales
for the quarter.
On this news, Sleep Number's stock fell $14.80, or 12%, to close at
$110.13 per share on April 22, 2021, thereby injuring investors.
Then, on July 20, 2021, Sleep Number released its second quarter
2021 financial results. Once again, the results missed consensus
estimates, which the Company blamed on supply constraints and
component shortages.
On this news, Sleep Number's stock fell $14.46, or 12.88%, to close
at $97.78 per share on July 21, 2021.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. [GN]
SOUTH VALLEY ALMOND: Claims in Cabrera Suit vs AgReserves Narrowed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALVARO LOPEZ CABRERA, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SOUTH
VALLEY ALMOND COMPANY, LLC, a California limited liability company;
AGRESERVES, INC., a Utah corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 1:21-cv-00748-AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal.), the Court
entered an order:
1. AgReserves's motion to dismiss is granted in part and
denied in part as follows:
a. The Plaintiff's First through Eighth Causes of Action
are dismissed as to both Defendants; and
b. The motion is denied as to Plaintiff's class claims;
2. To the extent AgReserves intended to bring a motion to
strike Plaintiff's class allegations under Rule 12(f), the
motion to strike is denied;
3. The Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended pleading
not later than 21 days after the date of electronic
service of this order;
4. The Defendants will have 21 days from the date of
electronic service of an amended pleading to answer or
otherwise respond to the amended pleading; and
5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended pleading within 21
days from the date of electronic service of this order,
this action will be dismissed, in its entirety, without
further notice to the parties.
The Court said, "AgReserves's motion to dismiss will be granted as
to all eight causes of action. Given the nature of the analysis
underlying this order, the causes of action will be dismissed as to
both AgReserves and South Valley. The Court will grant leave to
amend as it appears the pleading could be cured through the
allegation of additional facts. The motion to dismiss will be
denied to the extent it seeks dismissal of class claims, and
AgReserves's Rule 12(f) motion will be denied, to the extent
AgReserves's intended to bring one."
The Plaintiff Alvaro Lopez Cabrera filed this putative class action
against South Valley Almond Company, LLC and AgReserves (together
with South Valley, in Kern County Superior Court on April 1, 2021.
As alleged in the Complaint, South Valley is a "client employer"
that "procures workers" from AgReserves and AgReserves is a "labor
contractor" that provides workers to South Valley.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in California as a non-exempt
employee approximately from July 2012 through April 2020. His
duties "included, but were not limited to, harvesting, piling, and
cleaning almonds as well as tractor driving, irrigating, machine
maintenance, and general labor."
The Complaint recites claims "on behalf of Plaintiff and all other
current and former non-exempt California employees employed by or
formerly employed by Defendants," for failure to pay overtime
wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal
periods or payment in lieu thereof; failure to provide rest periods
or payment in lieu thereof; waiting time penalties for failure to
timely pay all wages earned and due upon discontinuation of
employment; failure to issue accurate wage statements; failure to
indemnify employees for business expenses; and unfair competition
in violation of section 17200 of the California Business and
Professions Code.
South Valley produces almonds.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Jk6BjP at no extra charge.[CC]
SUTTELL & HAMMER: DeAngelis Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH DEANGELIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. SUTTELL & HAMMER, P.S., NICHOLAS K. WASSON, BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 1:21-cv-12083-PBS (D. Mass., Dec. 17, 2021)
is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other
Massachusetts residents who were subjected to alleged unlawful
consumer debt collection activities by the Defendants pursuant to
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act.
Ms. DeAngelis is an individual who resides in Walpole, Norfolk
County, Massachusetts.
Suttell & Hammer is a law firm that at relevant times regularly
collected or attempted to collect, directly or indirectly, consumer
debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another by
Massachusetts residents. The Defendant Nicholas K. Wasson is an
attorney employed by the Suttell & Hammer law firm with an office
address of 3000 Northup Way, Bellevue, Washington.
Defendant Bank of America, N.A., is a federally chartered banking
institution with a principal place of business at 100 North Tryon
Street, Charlotte, North Carolina.
On December 23, 2020, Suttell Defendants filed a lawsuit against
Plaintiff in the Boston Municipal Court on behalf of the Bank. The
complaint prepared and filed by the Suttell Defendants sought
monetary damages allegedly owed to the Bank on a credit card
agreement allegedly entered into by Plaintiff in 2016.
The alleged credit card agreement was entered into primarily for
personal, family, or household purposes. The alleged debt pursuant
to the alleged credit card agreement was incurred primarily for
personal, family, or household purposes, otherwise known as a
"consumer debt," the lawsuit says.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth D. Quat, Esq.
QUAT LAW OFFICES
373 Winch Street
Framingham MA 01701
Telephone: (508) 872-1261
E-mail: ken@quatlaw.com
- and -
Christopher M. Brine, Esq.
BRINE CONSUMER LAW
100 Grove Street, Suite 116
Worcester MA 01605
Telephone: (508) 556-1899
E-mail: cmb@brineconsumerlaw.com
T-MOBILE USA: Winkler Suit Transferred From S.D. Tex. to W.D. Mo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID WINKLER AND CORY BARTON
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons and on
behalf of the general public v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., Case No.
7:21-cv-00322, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
Southern District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for Western
District of Missouri (Kansas City) on Dec. 21, 2021.
The Western District of Missouri Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:21-cv-00885-BCW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Brian C. Wimes.
The suit alleges that Defendant failed to provide reasonable and
adequate data security, the Plaintiffs' and the Class Members'
unencrypted, non-redacted personally identifiable information (PII)
has been exposed to unauthorized third parties.
The Plaintiffs and the Class are now at much higher risk of
identity theft and cybercrimes of all kinds, especially considering
the highly sensitive PII stolen here and the fact that the
compromised PII is already being sold on the dark web. This risk
constitutes a concrete injury suffered by Plaintiffs and the Class,
as they no longer have control over their PII, which PII is now in
the hands of third-party cybercriminals, says the suit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
- and -
Cornelius Dukelow, Esq.
ABINGTON COLE + ELLERY
320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1130
Tulsa, OK 74103
Telephone: (918) 588-3400
E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com
TARGET CORP: Faces Maybaum Class Suit Over Free Gift Cards
----------------------------------------------------------
LAURA MAYBAUM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. TARGET CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 21STCV46229 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 20, 2021)
is a consumer protection class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the Target products related to the advertising and
marketing of Target's purportedly "free" gift cards, which
Plaintiff contends violates the law, including the Unfair
Competition, the False Advertising Law and the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that over the four years preceding the filing
of this Complaint and continuing to the present, Target has had an
unfair and unlawful practice regarding its advertising, sale of,
redemption, and return of retail items purchased with Target gift
cards and gift card related promotions. The Plaintiff alleges that
(a) gift cards advertised as "free" were not in fact free, and (b)
when retail items are purchased from Target in connection with a
"free" gift card offer, and when those purchased item(s) are
returned, the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are refunded less
than what they are owed. Plaintiff alleges that this policy and
practice of Target with these promotions violated California law
prohibiting retailers from charging for purportedly "free" items
and giving less than full cash credit refunds unless they have a
more restrictive refund policy and post it or otherwise provide
notice.
Target was and is in the business of selling a broad range of
household goods, food and pet supplies, apparel and accessories,
electronics, toys, decor, and other items under national brands as
well as owned and exclusive brands to the consumer public at large,
including consumers in California.
During the class period, Target has allegedly marketed, advertised
and offered and continues to market, advertise and offers "FREE"
gift cards with purchase of products. The advertisement upon which
Plaintiff relied stated that a consumer could obtain a "FREE $10
Target GiftCard" with the purchase of toys or kids' books totaling
$40 or more (excluding specifically identified toys).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad B. Wootton, Esq.
Amy T. Wootton, Esq.
WOOTTON LAW GROUP, LLP
5455 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Telephone: 323.460.2100
E-mail: chadwootton@woottonlawgroup.com
amywootton@woottonlawgroup.com
TENET FINTECH: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Tenet Fintech Group Inc. ("Tenet" or the
"Company") (Other OTC: PKKFF) in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Tenet securities
between September 2, 2021 and October 13, 2021, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until January 18,
2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) Tenet Fintech did not own 51% of Asia Synergy Financial Capital
Ltd. ("ASFC") through Wuxi Aorong; (2) Tenet Fintech did not
disclose its actual ownership structure of ASFC, an undisclosed and
potentially problematic nominee shareholder agreement; (3) Huayan
did not own the Heartbeat platform; (4) the Heartbeat platform did
not exist prior to the alleged acquisition; (5) Tenet Fintech faced
imminent delisting from NASDAQ due to non-compliance with known
regulations; (6) the "recent disclosure guidance" was in fact
published on November 23, 2020, nearly a full nine months prior to
Tenet Fintech's uplisting; (7) as such, Tenet Fintech knew or
should have known that its 40-F submission was deficient; (8)
Cubeler historically failed to make even minimum loan repayments to
Tenet Fintech; (9) Tenet Fintech, instead of exercising its right
on the assets, decided to purchase Cubeler; (10) in light of the
foregoing, and in consideration of the fact that Cubeler is owned
by several Tenet Fintech insiders, the Company's acquisition of
Cubeler is not based on legitimate business interests; (11) there
is no evidence Huayan ever owned the Heartbeat platform or that it
transferred the asset to Huike; (12) the largest ASFC shareholder
had his shares frozen due to court sanctions; and (13) the creation
of ASFC itself was likely a related-party transaction. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Tenet shares and suffered a
loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Alexandra Raymond by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
TIGER BRANDS: Listeriosis Suit Continues After Death of Newborn
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Isaacs, writing for IOL, reports that three years after the
death of her newborn baby as a result of listeriosis, Thenjiwe Dodo
of Bloemfontein said the trauma for her and her family continued as
the class action suit against Tiger Brands, involving more than 900
claimants, drags on.
At eight months pregnant in 2018, Dodo was preparing for the final
stretch of her pregnancy -- a miracle one, as she and her husband
had tried for eight years to start a family.
She said eating polony was a way to make sure she and her unborn
child were nourished.
"Everything was well, the baby would play every morning, then one
morning I could feel the baby wasn't playing like he used to.
"I first went to a private doctor, and he told me everything was
okay. I went back home but the following day it was the same thing,
then I decided to go to hospital."
When Dodo got to the hospital, she was in pain and doctors informed
her she was having labour pains.
She gave birth two days later on February 19, 2018, to baby
Nkanyezi.
"Immediately after giving birth, the baby was not crying. They took
him away and he was in the ICU and I was in the labour ward. I
remember 12 hours after giving birth, that was when I could see my
baby."
At three days old, doctors told Dodo that Nkanyezi had listeriosis
and could not breathe on his own.
"Honestly I had no idea what it (listeriosis) was," she said.
"They (doctors) told me that he was going to be fine, I don't think
I wanted to know more. They said they have antibiotics that will
help him. But then they told me that should he be okay, the
listeriosis has already affected his brain. He is not going to be
like other kids, he will have special needs."
By day 11, Nkanyezi's condition deteriorated and he was on life
support.
At 16 days old, Nkanyezi passed away.
"It was a very traumatic thing to experience. I never held my
son."
Dodo said staff from the Health Department came to the hospital,
asking what she had eaten and where she had been.
"I ate polony. We trusted the brand. When you are pregnant, you
have all these cravings and … I wanted something that is quality
for my baby. I was infected with (listeriosis) but my immune system
was much stronger."
Dodo said she responded to calls on the news for victims to come
forward after the Gauteng High Court in December granted an order
permitting a class action lawsuit to be brought against Tiger
Brands by Richard Spoor Inc Attorneys and LHL Attorneys Inc, as
joint legal representatives of the class with US Law firm Marler
Clark LLP.
In the latest development in the case, on November 5, the Supreme
Court of Appeal (SCA) heard appeals regarding subpoenas that Tiger
Brands issued to the National Health Laboratory Services (NHLS),
two laboratories and various meat vendors across the country.
These subpoenas sought to obtain information relating to the
presence of Listeria monocytogenes in facilities and products over
the outbreak period from October 2016 to September 2018.
Tiger Brands submitted that the key issue at the heart of the
subpoenas was whether it could challenge the findings of the
National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD) that Tiger
Brands was the sole source of the outbreak.
Judgment is expected to be handed down early next year.
Lead attorney on the case, Catherine Marcus, said: "We believe that
this is a fishing expedition - the findings of the NICD that Tiger
Brands' Enterprise facility in Polokwane was the sole source of the
outbreak are clear. However, the High Court held that the
defendants are entitled to pursue the subpoenas.
"This has caused significant delays to the matter as a whole,
delays caused by the defendants, with expansive resources, which
primarily affect the victims of the class action - regular
consumers, many of whom are vulnerable and depend on compensation
from the defendants for the significant harms caused by their
consumption of the Enterprise product. The longer the matter is
drawn out, the longer these victims are unable to access the
necessary resources to rebuild their lives."
The NICD reported over 1000 victims of the outbreak, and Marcus
said with over 900 claimants, they continued to be approached by
more.
Tiger Brands said they were not in a position to comment on the
matter while it is before the courts but reiterated that they
remained committed to abiding by the court legal processes and to
ensuring that a resolution of the matter is reached in the shortest
possible time.
"In 2018, we partnered with Stellenbosch University to launch the
first Centre for Food Safety in the country. Through this
partnership, we have access to the latest research, trends and
training to ensure we consistently lead the way in the areas of
food quality and safety.
"We hold ourselves, and our suppliers and third-party manufacturing
partners, to the same stringent standards. All our manufacturing
sites conduct self-assessments against the Global Food Safety
Initiative (GFSI) tool, as well as internal quality and food safety
standards. All our food factories are audited and certified by an
independent international auditing body against the internationally
recognised Food Safety System Certification (FSSC22000), a
GFSI-recognised scheme," Tiger Brands said in a statement.
In 2019, Tiger Brands joined the European Hygienic Engineering and
Design Group to advance the hygiene standards across manufacturing
facilities.
Dodo said the slow progress of the class action was further
traumatising.
"I don't think they can understand the trauma that listeriosis has
caused for us. They were supposed to be protecting us and giving us
the best quality, but we lost our loved ones." [GN]
TIKTOK INC: Faces Suit From Content Moderators Over Child Abuse
---------------------------------------------------------------
livemint.com reports that TikTok's 10,000 content moderators are
exposed to a regular diet of child pornography, rapes, beheadings
and animal mutilation, according to a lawsuit filed against the
video-sharing platform and its parent, ByteDance Inc.
It gets worse. Content moderator Candie Frazier says in her
proposed class-action lawsuit that she has screened videos
involving freakish cannibalism, crushed heads, school shootings,
suicides, and even a fatal fall from a building, complete with
audio.
And there's no escaping it, Frazier claims. TikTok requires
moderators to work at a frantic pace, watching hundreds of videos
per 12-hour shift with only an hour off for lunch and two 15-minute
breaks, according to the complaint in federal court in Los Angeles.
"Due to the sheer volume of content, content moderators are
permitted no more than 25 seconds per video, and simultaneously
view three to ten videos at the same time," her lawyers said in the
complaint.
TikTok said it doesn't comment on ongoing litigation, but strives
"to promote a caring working environment for our employees and
contractors."
"Our safety team partners with third party firms on the critical
work of helping to protect the TikTok platform and community, and
we continue to expand on a range of wellness services so that
moderators feel supported mentally and emotionally," a company
spokesperson said in a statement.
TikTok was a member of a group of social media companies including
Facebook and YouTube that developed guidelines for helping
moderators cope with the images of child abuse that their jobs
required them to view, according to the complaint. [GN]
TIKTOK INC: Moderator Files Class Action Over Emotional Distress
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Jean, writing for iTechPost, reports that a TikTok moderator
has filed a lawsuit against the social media giant, citing
emotional distress.
According to a complaint filed against TikTok and its parent
compang, ByteDance Inc., the video-sharing platform's 10,000
content moderators are often exposed to child pornography, rapes,
beheadings, and animal cruelty.
TikTok Lawsuit
Candie Frazier, a content moderator, claimed that it gets so much
worse than that.
In her proposed class-action TikTok lawsuit, she stated that she
has watched films containing audio of weird cannibalism, smashed
heads, school shootings, suicides, and even a tragic fall from a
building.
Furthermore, TikTok apparently asks moderators to perform 12-hour
shifts with only a one-hour lunch and two 15-minute breaks,
contributing to the problem.
According to the complaint via Bloomberg, due to the overwhelming
volume of content, content moderators are only limited to 25
seconds per video, and with that, moderators must actively view
three to ten films.
The Problem With TikTok
Content moderators bear the weight of gruesome and horrific images
that some people post on social media, ensuring that consumers are
spared the anguish.
In a consent form, one company that provides content moderators for
huge tech companies even stated that the employment can trigger
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Social media businesses, on the other hand, have been questioned by
its moderators and others for not paying enough attention to the
psychological risks and for not providing adequate mental health
care to their employees, specifically to its moderators.
In congruent to that, in 2018, a similar case was brought against
Facebook.
TikTok Causing Mental Trauma
TikTok produced standards to help moderators deal with child abuse
and other horrific pictures, in collaboration with other social
media firms, such as Facebook and YouTube.
Companies should limit moderator duties to four hours and give
psychological assistance, according to the recommendations.
According to the lawsuit, TikTok, on the other hand, allegedly
failed to follow such restrictions.
As stated in the class-action lawsuit, TikTok failed to follow the
rules, which include providing psychological assistance and
restricting shifts to four hours.
The complainant claimed she now suffers from post-traumatic stress
disorder as a consequence of having to view so many distressing
content.
According to Yahoo Finance, Frazier, who is attempting to represent
other TikTok content screeners, is seeking monetary damages or
psychological impairments as well as a court order compelling the
corporation to establish a medical fund for moderators.
TikTok As a Company
This isn't the only time TikTok is facing a class-action lawsuit.
Since the West raised worries about TikTok's ties to the Chinese
government, ByteDance has been separating TikTok from the rest of
its Chinese enterprises.
Furthermore, TikTok claimes that all of its data is stored in the
United States, with backup servers in Singapore, rather than
Beijing, where its parent firm is based.
These actions are insufficient to assuage the concerns of US
regulators, as reported by TechCrunch.
TikTok received stiff questions in its first-ever congressional
hearing in the United States, and was frequently pushed to clarify
its semantics.
ByteDance has long been dubbed as an "app factory" for its proven
approach of churning out apps and selling them through a
comprehensive back end of shared resources, ranging from
engineering to marketing support.
As a result, a number of popular apps have emerged, including
Douyin and Toutiao in China, and TikTok to the rest of the world.
With the TikTok lawsuit from its own employees, TikTok haven't yet
commented on this matter. [GN]
VIZIV TECHNOLOGIES: Family Trust Balks at Beach of Fiduciary Duties
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THE TERRY AND ROSE KNUTSON 2000 FAMILY TRUST, DONAL P. BARRY
DECLARATION OF TRUST, SURFACE ENERGY PARTNERS, LLC, and TERRA POWER
LLC, for themselves and others similarly situated v. JAMES F.
CORUM, KENNETH L. CORUM, DAVID R. GRIFFITH, AND BASIL F. PINZONE,
JR., Case No. DC-21-17974 (Tex. Dist., Dallas Cty., Dec. 17, 2021)
arises from the alleged egregious fraudulent conduct and breaches
of fiduciary duties by the Defendants, who were controlling
members and managers of Viziv Technologies, LLC, which is the
debtor in an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding under Chapter of the
Bankruptcy Code.
The claims asserted are direct claims against the Defendants and do
not encompass derivative claims that existed prior to the
bankruptcy.
The Plaintiffs are the proposed representatives of a class of unit
holders who, collectively, invested approximately $80 million in
capital investments in the Company. The Plaintiffs and those they
represent are referred as the A-3 Unit Holders.
According to the complaint, the Defendants committed acts of fraud,
including fraud by nondisclosure, and breached their fiduciary
duties of obedience, loyalty, and due care owed to Plaintiffs and
the other A-3 Unit Holders under Texas law.
The Plaintiffs seeks monetary relief over $1,000,000. Each of the
Plaintiffs is a unit holder of Viziv and are class representatives
of the other A-3 Unit Holders.
The Defendants are referred collectively as the "Founders." The
Founders are owners of Class A-l and Class A-2 units in Viziv,
which they hold through their respective entities; namely,
Spikenard Trust, Arduous Trust, The Indian Shore Trust, Pinzone
Family Irrevocable Trust, The Pierian Trust, The Facile Trust, The
South Indian Shore Trust, The Windjammer Trust, and Sarah‘s
Daughter's Trust.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
S. Cass Weiland, Esq.
Robert A. Hawkins, Esq.
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
2000 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 758-1500
Facsimile: (214) 758—1550
E-mail: Cass.weiland@squirepbcom
Robert.hawkins@squirepb.com
VW CREDIT: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Boehm Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ANDREW BOEHM, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VW CREDIT, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; and VW CREDIT LEASING LTD., a Delaware
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 8:21CV406 (D. Neb.), Magistrate
Judge Cheryl R. Zwart of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nebraska grants the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration.
On July 31, 2018, Plaintiff Andrew Boehm, a Nebraska resident,
entered into a closed end motor vehicle lease with Baxter VW of
Omaha. The Lease was assigned to VW Credit Leasing Inc., which
thereafter assigned its rights under the Lease to VCI Account
Services, LLC. VW Credit, Inc., maintains and services the
Plaintiff's account associated with the Lease on behalf of VW
Credit Leasing, Ltd., and then VCI Account Services, and is, thus,
the agent of VW Credit Leasing, Ltd. and VCI Account Services,
LLC.
Bringing this action on behalf of himself and the putative class of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff's first claim alleges
Defendants violated the Consumer Leasing Act ("CLA") by not
disclosing material terms of the Lease. Specifically, the Plaintiff
alleges the Defendants violated the CLA by failing to properly
disclose the purchase option and the method of calculation of
termination fees, which would be charged against the Plaintiff when
he tried to sell the leased vehicle to a third party.
The Plaintiff alleges a claim for false advertising (Claim Two) and
a claim for fraudulent omission (Claim Three). The Plaintiff
alleges that the sales agents informed him of a purchase option he
could exercise at the end of the lease but did not tell him the
Defendants would not cooperate with the sale of the purchase option
to a third party. He alleges the Defendants hid that their true
intent was to violate the contract and entirely refuse cooperation
if the Plaintiff desired to sell his purchase option to a third
party.
Claim Four alleges violations of the Nebraska Deceptive Trade
Practices Act ("NDTPA"). The Plaintiff also alleges claims for
breach of contract or the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing (Claim Five), and intentional interference with a business
relationship (Claim Six).
The Defendants seek to enforce the arbitration provision contained
in the Lease between the Plaintiff and Baxter VW of Omaha, which
was subsequently assigned and serviced by the Defendants. As of the
date of this order, the Plaintiff has not responded to the
Defendants' motion, and the time for doing so has passed. The
Plaintiff has not requested leave to respond out of time. The
motion is deemed fully submitted.
Analysis
Arbitration is favored and this court's role is to engage in a
limited inquiry to "determine whether there is a valid agreement to
arbitrate and whether the specific dispute at issue falls within
the substantive scope of that agreement," Larry's United Super,
Inc. v. Werries, 253 F.3d 1083, 1085 (8th Cir. 2001). If the court
so finds, Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires a stay
of proceedings subject to an arbitration agreement, and Section 4
empowers the court to compel the parties to proceed with
arbitration.
Under the Federal Arbitration Act, a written arbitration agreement
"shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such
grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any
contract," 9 U.S.C. Section 2; Cicle v. Chase Bank USA, 583 F.3d
549, 553 (8th Cir. 2009). Section 2 gives States a method for
protecting customers against unfair pressure to agree to a contract
with an unwanted arbitration provision," if the contract violates
state law, citing Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S.
265 at 281 (1995).
I. Validity and Enforceability
a. Arbitration Clause
Judge Zwart notes that the initial question is whether a valid
agreement to arbitrate exists between the Plaintiff and the
Defendants and whether the claims raised in the Plaintiff's
complaint fall within the scope of that agreement. In support of
their motion, the Defendants submitted the affidavit of Matthew
Birmingham, a Customer Service Operations Manager at VW Credit Inc.
Birmingham attested to the contents of the Lease Agreement
("Lease"). The Defendants also submitted the Lease, signed by the
Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff did not respond to the Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration, but the Complaint alleges and acknowledges that the
Plaintiff signed a closed end auto lease with the Defendants. Judge
Zwart notes that it is undisputed that the Lease between Baxter and
VW of Omaha was assigned and/or serviced by the Defendants.
The arbitration provision allows customers to "opt out" by sending
written notice of opt out to VW Credit Leasing Ltd. within 15 days
of the date of the lease. Birmingham's affidavit states the
Defendants did not receive notice from the Plaintiff rejecting the
arbitration clause within 15 days of the execution of the Lease.
The Plaintiff had the opportunity to read and review the
arbitration provision and opt out, and still be allowed to enter
into the Lease with Defendants. The arbitration agreement at issue
is valid and enforceable, Judge Zwart holds.
b. Class Action Waiver
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, and others
similarly situated. However, the arbitration provision includes a
class action waiver. The "Arbitration Provision" provides that if a
dispute is arbitrated, the customer will give up the right to
participate as a class representative or class member on any class
claim against the company, including any right to class arbitration
or any consolidation of individual arbitrations.
Judge Zwart finds that the class action waiver is unequivocal, and
the agreement provides that the parties retain the right to seek
remedies in small claims court for disputes or claims within the
court's jurisdiction unless the action is transferred, removed, or
appealed to a different court. The terms of the agreement apply
equally to the parties and the Plaintiff had the opportunity to opt
out of the arbitration provision but did not elect to do so.
Therefore, only the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants are
eligible for arbitration.
II. Scope
Having found that there is a valid agreement to arbitrate, the
Court must consider whether the Plaintiff's claims fall within the
scope of the arbitration clause. In resolving this issue, the first
question is "whether the arbitration clause is broad or narrow,"
Judge Zwart states, citing Parm v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., 898 F.3d
869, 874 (8th Cir. 2018).
Arbitration clauses covering claims "arising out of" or "relating
to" an agreement are considered broad, Judge Zwart notes, citing
Zetor N. Am., Inc. v. Rozeboom, 861 F.3d 807, 810 (8th Cir. 2017).
And since the Plaintiff's claims arise out of or relate solely to
the terms and enforcement of the "Closed End Motor Vehicle Lease"
the Plaintiff allegedly signed, the claims are undoubtedly included
in the scope of the broadly worded arbitration agreement.
The party resisting arbitration bears the burden of demonstrating
the motion to compel arbitration should be denied, and there has
been no resistance to the instant motion, Judge Zwart holds. The
Court will stay this action in the federal court and compel
arbitration under the terms of the Lease Agreement and associated
Arbitration Provision.
Accordingly, it is ordered:
1) The Defendants' unopposed Motion to Compel Arbitration is
granted;
2) The Plaintiff's claims will be promptly submitted to
binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration
clause quoted and discussed in this opinion;
3) The Plaintiff's claims are stayed pending arbitration.
Every 90 days from the date of this order, counsel will
file a joint status report with the Court regarding the
progress of the arbitration proceedings; and
4) The clerk will administratively close the case and set a
March 21, 2022 case management deadline.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 20,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4jt7bfyz from
Leagle.com.
WEST MONROE: Faces Daky ERISA Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW DALY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. WEST MONROE PARTNERS, INC.; THE BENEFITS COMMITTEE OF
WEST MONROE PARTNERS, INC.; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WEST MONROE
PARTNERS, INC.; ARGENT TRUST COMPANY; and DOES 1-30, Case No.
1:21-cv-06805 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 22, 2021) is a class complaint
brought by the Plaintiff individually and on behalf of the Plan and
a Class of its participants and beneficiaries against the Plan's
fiduciaries For breach of fiduciary duties and prohibited
transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The Plaintiff also asserts a claim against West Monroe's Board of
Directors for breach of fiduciary duties under Delaware law.
The Plan's fiduciaries include West Monroe, the Board of Directors
and Benefits Committee of West Monroe and their members, as well as
the Plan's trustee, Argent Trust Company.
Accordingly, the Participants trusted Defendants to perform their
duties with the care and loyalty ERISA requires. The Defendants
breached that trust. In April 2021, Defendants appraised the fair
value of the Company at approximately $515.18 million (or $515.18
per share x 1 million shares) as of year-end 2020. As the facts
below make clear, Defendants' April 2021 valuation was neither
careful, skillful, prudent, nor diligent, and it grossly
undervalued the Company stock held in the Plan, the suit says.
Nonetheless, in September 2021, Defendants used that April
valuation to repurchase almost 28,000 shares of Company stock from
the Plan -- from the accounts of Plaintiff and Class members -- at
the discounted price of $515.18 per share. As a result, Defendants
cashed Plaintiff and Class members out of the Plan for well below
the fair value of their shares. Within weeks, the Company would
reveal that its stock's true fair value was almost five times
higher than the price the Class received, the suit added.
The Plan's bargain sale of Company stock back to West Monroe, for
less than a quarter on the dollar, was not just imprudent and
disloyal; it was also a prohibited transaction under ERISA § 406.
That provision prohibits direct or indirect transactions between
the Plan and a party-in-interest as well as self-dealing by
fiduciaries for less than adequate consideration.
Moreover, Defendants allegedly violated ERISA Section 404 by
failing to disclose the higher valuation and impending sale to
Class members before they elected distributions. Had Class members
known these facts, they could (and likely would) have chosen to
retain balances in their Plan accounts, which would have entitled
each Class member to a portion of the proceeds from the sale to MSD
Partners -- an allocation substantially higher than the
distributions they received in September 2021.
Matthew Daly was a consultant and employee of West Monroe from June
15, 2015 to November 9, 2020. He had a vested balance of
approximately 313 shares of Company stock in the Plan until around
September 22, 2021, when he received a cash distribution in the
amount of $515.18 per share. Mr. Daly suffered significant losses
due to Defendants' imprudent conduct, including their
undervaluation of and failure to provide adequate consideration for
the stock in his Plan account.
Like other West Monroe employees, the Plaintiff had accrued Company
stock in his account in the Plan as part of his compensation for
years of service to the Company. Like other departing employees,
Plaintiff remained invested in the Plan until September 2021, when
West Monroe bought back his stock and cashed him out of the Plan.
West Monroe Partners, Inc. is a self-described "digital consulting
firm" incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois. At all relevant times, West Monroe was the Plan's sponsor
as well as the "administrator" of the Plan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Singer, Esq.
MATT SINGER LAW, LLC
77 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 4500
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 248-9123
E-mail: matt@mattsingerlaw.com
- and -
Charles Field, Esq.
Russell Kornblith, Esq.
Sean Ouellette, Esq.
SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
2550 Fifth Avenue, 11th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 577-4242
Facsimile: (619) 577-4250
cfield@sanfordheisler.com
E-mail:rkornblith@sanfordheisler.com
souellette@sanfordheisler.com
WILBUR-ELLIS CO: Billing Rates Order Issued in Blue Buffalo Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rodney W. Sippel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, overrules the objection and
adopts the Special Master's order granting the Plaintiff's motion
to compel billing rates in the lawsuit captioned as BLUE BUFFALO
COMPANY, LTD., Plaintiff v. WILBUR-ELLIS COMPANY, LLC and
DIVERSIFIED INGREDIENTS, INC., Defendants, AND RELATED ACTIONS,
Case No. 4:14 CV 859 RWS (E.D. Mo.).
The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Blue Buffalo's
objection to Special Master Bradley A. Winters's Omnibus Order No.
12. Defendants Wilbur-Ellis and Diversified Ingredients have filed
responses.
In Omnibus Order No. 12, the Special Master granted Blue Buffalo's
motion to compel the billing rates for the Defendants' four most
expensive outside counsel from the Nestle Purina and class action
lawsuits and the government's related criminal investigation (the
"collateral proceedings"). He did not, however, order production of
information about fees expended and work performed by all defense
counsel in the collateral proceedings.
Blue Buffalo objects to this determination, arguing that "it is
entitled to explain to a jury that the Defendants used their own
employees to cover-up their illegal scheme and hide the truth. The
Defendants' lawyers are no different. Blue Buffalo is entitled to
tell the jury that Defendants used their lawyers to carry out their
strategy of deny and delay." To make this showing, Blue Buffalo
contends that it must be able to discuss the fees that the
Defendants' lawyers were paid, including information or summary
information from the collateral proceedings that consists of
counsels' hourly rates; the total amount of fees each defendant
spent; and information about the work that counsel performed.
In their responses to the objection, Wilbur-Ellis and Diversified
argue that this issue was previously resolved in Omnibus Order No.
6 and is squarely governed by the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit's decision in Burks v. Siemens Energy &
Automation, Inc., 215 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2000).
Analysis
Omnibus Order Nos. 6 and 12
In Omnibus Order No. 6, the Special Master addressed Blue Buffalo's
request for discovery of Wilbur-Ellis's and Diversified's fee
records to support the reasonableness of Blue Buffalo's claimed
damages. He concluded that Burks is the "controlling authority for
this issue" and further explained that the fees as damages sought
by Blue Buffalo differ in significant ways from the traditional
prevailing party contractual and statutory fee awards, which are
properly the subject of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) posttrial motions.
Blue Buffalo filed an objection to this order. After reviewing
Omnibus Order No. 6 and the parties' briefs, Judge Sippel issued an
order overruling the objection and adopting the Special Master's
conclusions about the discoverability of Wilbur-Ellis's attorneys'
fees related to this litigation. However, Judge Sippel allowed the
parties to submit additional briefs concerning the discoverability
of fee information from the collateral proceedings.
This led to the issuance of Omnibus Order No. 12, in which the
Special Master concluded that Blue Buffalo's jump from 'litigation
tactics are discoverable' to 'therefore, Defendants' legal bills
and billing records must be turned over to Blue Buffalo,' is a
syllogistic leap too far. The Special Master, therefore, ordered
that Blue Buffalo's motion for information regarding the
Defendants' attorney fee invoices is denied without prejudice
except that the Defendants will each provide Blue Buffalo with the
names and hourly billing rates of their four (4) outside counsel in
this litigation with the highest hourly rates between May 1, 2014,
and May 31, 2015.
Governing standard for theory of relevance
Wilbur-Ellis and Diversified agree with the Special Master's
conclusion that the Eighth Circuit's analysis in Burks governs this
issue. Blue Buffalo disagrees, citing three Eighth Circuit cases,
in addition to one district court case, in support of its argument
that courts may permit discovery of an opponent's attorneys' fees
to prove the reasonableness of a party's requested fees (see Tussey
v. ABB, Inc., 746 F.3d 327, 340-41 (8th Cir. 2014), et al.).
In Burks, the plaintiff appealed the district court's reduction of
his counsel's requested attorneys' fees, arguing that the district
court should have compared the fees requested to the fees that
defense counsel charged. The Eighth Circuit disagreed, finding that
such an apples-to-oranges comparison is not required by law and
would not be advisable.
Judge Sippel opines that Burks does not forbid courts from ever
considering one party's attorneys' fees when determining the
reasonableness of another's fees. However, the case is clear that
even if a court can make this comparison, it generally should not.
Judge Sippel says his review of subsequent case law further
supports this reading of Burks. Several district courts in this
circuit have cited Burks when declining to compare attorneys'
fees.
Even if Blue Buffalo's reading of Burks was correct--namely, that
the most the case stands for is that permitting the discovery of a
defendant's attorney's fees is within the broad discretion of the
district court--Judge Sippel does not believe that comparing
attorneys' fees would be appropriate in this case because he agrees
with the Special Master's finding that the parties were not engaged
in the same kind of work in the collateral proceedings.
Judge Sippel holds that this conclusion is supported by the helpful
list supplied by Diversified's counsel, which sets forth
differences between Diversified's conduct and that of Blue Buffalo
throughout the course of the collateral proceedings (noting, for
example, that during this time period, Blue Buffalo defended
against Purina's claims of false advertising and violations of the
Lanham Act, while Diversified did not; and Diversified brought
cross claims and third-party claims against Wilbur-Ellis and Custom
AG Commodities, LLC, and engaged in discovery disputes in other
courts, while Blue Buffalo did not).
Judge Sippel finds that it makes sense to compare fees, or even
allow discovery into the issue, when parties are litigating against
one another in the same case. But here, such a comparison would not
speak to the reasonableness of Blue Buffalo's requested attorneys'
fees, as the parties were not engaged in the same work in the
collateral proceedings, Judge Sippel points out.
The Special Master ordered the production of "certain very limited"
fee information from defense counsel "to assure that the parties
and the Court have benchmark 'reasonableness' information available
to them." Judge Sippel believes that was appropriate. Requiring the
production of any further fee information from the collateral
proceedings, particularly time entries detailing the work that
defense counsel performed, is not required by law and would not be
advisable. As a result, Judge Sippel will overrule Blue Buffalo's
objection and adopt the Special Master's Omnibus Order No. 12 in
its entirety.
Accordingly, it is ordered that Blue Buffalo's objection to Omnibus
Order No. 12, is overruled.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 20,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ysxf3kpb from
Leagle.com.
YOUNG LIVING: Court Junks MacNaughten Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORI MACNAUGHTEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL OILS, LC, Case No. 5:21-cv-00071-BKS-ML
(N.D.N.Y.), the Court entered an order:
-- granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss;
-- dismissing without prejudice the First Amended Complaint;
-- directing the Plaintiff to file a letter motion seeking
permission to amend by January 17, 2022; and
-- directing the Clerk to close this case if no letter motion
to amend is filed by January 17, 2022.
The Court said, "The Plaintiff has already amended the complaint
once, in response to Defendant's first motion to dismiss, and has
not sought leave to amend. The Court is not aware of any facts that
would support a viable claim. However, since the parties' briefing
did not address the impact of a ruling against Plaintiff on the
issue of puffery, the Court will permit Plaintiff to file a letter
motion seeking permission to amend. Any such motion must be filed
with a proposed second amended
complaint, and comply with N.D.N.Y. Local Rule 15(a), and must be
filed by January 17, 2021. The Defendant may respond in a letter
brief by January 24, 2021."
Ms. MacNaughten brings this proposed class action against Defendant
Young Living Essential Oils, LC for Defendant's allegedly "unlawful
and deceptive conduct" in the "marketing, sale and delivery" of its
line of essential oil products.
The Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated who purchased Young Living essential oil
products, alleging: violation of the State Consumer Fraud Acts of
the states in the Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class (Count I);
violation of New York General Business Law ("NYGBL") section 349 in
the alternative to Count I and on behalf of Plaintiff and the New
York Sub-Class (Count II); violation of NYGBL section 350 in the
alternative to Count I and on behalf of Plaintiff and the New York
Sub-Class (Count III); violation of NYGBL section 350-A(1) on
behalf of Plaintiff and the National Class and/or New York
Sub-Class (Count IV); breach of express warranty on behalf of
Plaintiff and the National Class (Count V); breach of implied
warranty of merchantability on behalf of Plaintiff and the National
Class (Count VI); breach of implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose on behalf of Plaintiff and the National Class
(Count VII); and unjust enrichment in the alternative on behalf of
the National Class and the New York Sub-Class (Count VIII).
The Plaintiff, a citizen of New York residing in Syracuse,
purchased Young Living products online sometime "in the last four
years, and specifically on or around February 2020." She purchased
essential oils "includ[ing], but not limited to," frankincense,
lavender, peppermint, eucalyptus, cinnamon, and orange.
Young Living manufactures and sells essential oils and blends. The
company markets its products "through its website and other
e-commerce channels," selling the products throughout the United
States and on consumer retail websites, but also by recruiting
"thousands of independent distributors" who sell the products to
customers through a multi-level marketing model.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HzI60r at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
227 W. Monroe St., Ste. 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
- and -
Aaron Siri, Esq.
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
200 Park Ave., 17 th Fl.
New York, NY 10166
The Defendant is represented by:
Olivia Arden Adendorff, Esq.
Jeremy A Fielding, Esq.
Rachael A. Rezabek, Esq.
Alexia Renee Brancato, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1601 Elm St.
Dallas, TX 75201
ZYMERGEN INC: Biao Wang Named as Lead Plaintiff in Shankar Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
appoints Biao Wang as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit styled HARIRAM
SHANKAR, Plaintiff v. ZYMERGEN INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-06028-JD (N.D. Cal.).
The case is a securities class action against Zymergen Inc. and
other defendants. The action was filed on behalf of persons and
entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired Zymergen common stock
issued in connection with the Company's April 2021 initial public
offering. Before the Court are competing motions for lead plaintiff
and lead counsel appointment.
I. Appointment of Lead Plaintiff
The Court has discussed in other orders the three-step process for
appointing a lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B). The first
step is for the plaintiff in the first-filed action to publicize
the pendency of the action, the claims made and the purported class
period in a widely circulated national business-oriented
publication or wire service, citing In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726,
729 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A)). The
notice must also state that any member of the purported class may
move the court to serve as lead plaintiff. There is no dispute that
this step was adequately completed by Plaintiff Hariram Shankar.
In the next two steps, the Court considers potential lead
plaintiffs one at a time, starting with the one who has the
greatest financial interest, and continuing in descending order if
and only if the presumptive lead plaintiff is found inadequate or
atypical. In step two, the Court determines presumptive lead
plaintiff status relying on the presumptive lead plaintiff's
complaint and sworn certification. In step three, the other
Plaintiffs have an opportunity to rebut the presumptive lead
plaintiff's showing by presenting evidence that disputes the lead
plaintiff's prima facie showing of typicality and adequacy.
District Judge James Donato notes that the process started with six
lead plaintiff applications. But at this point, it is not disputed
that Plaintiff Biao Wang possesses the largest financial interest
in this litigation. Nor has any other Plaintiff presented evidence
disputing Wang's prima facie showing of typicality and adequacy.
The Court appoints Biao Wang as the lead plaintiff in this action.
II. Appointment of Lead Counsel
Under the PSLRA, the Court must also appoint lead counsel. Wang has
selected the firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. The Court
sees no reason to disagree with Wang's selection.
Robbins Geller is appointed lead counsel for the putative class in
this shareholder class action.
III. Case Schedule and Next Steps
The parties are directed to file by Jan. 14, 2022, a proposed
schedule for filing an amended complaint or designating the
original complaint as the operative complaint, and for the
Defendants' response. The Defendants' obligation to respond to the
original complaint remains suspended.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 20, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8sn3sz from Leagle.com.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2022. 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 ***