/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220524.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, May 24, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 97
Headlines
A2 MILK: Faces Third Breach Class Action Suit, Appoints New CFO
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Court Certifies Specific Class in Loschiavo
AGRI STATS: Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
ALDI INC: Motion to Dismiss Salmon Sustainability Suit Denied
ALL HOURS: Adler TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
ALLSTATE FIRE: Settlement Class in Erby Conditionally Certified
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Cert. Briefing Sched Sought in Hilario
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Kombol's Bid for Class Certification Tossed
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Shareholder Suit for Misusing Customer Data
AMAZON.COM INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 5 Deadline
AMAZON.COM INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of July 5 Deadline
AMAZON.COM: June 2 Extension to File Class Cert Response Sought
AMERICAN LANDMARK: Court Sets Class Cert. Deadline, Briefing Sched
APPLE INC: Court Dismissed Suit Over Defective MacBook Pro Models
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Siri Secret Recordings
APPLE INC: Must File Opposition to Supplemental Bid by June 24
APPLE INC: Settlement in Maldonado Suit Gets Final Approval
ARQIT QUANTUM: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 5 Deadline
ARQIT QUANTUM: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 5 Deadline
AT&T MOBILITY: Razo Loses Prelim Approval Bid of Class Settlement
AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of July 12 Deadline
BAKKT HOLDINGS: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of June 20 Deadline
BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Collectible Card Games
BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Card Pack System
BOSTON MARKET: Fitzpatrick, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
CALIFORNIA: FTB Settles Tax Fee Class Action for $22 Million
CAPITAL ONE: Case Management, Scheduling Order Entered in Bacs
CAPITAL ONE: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $190MM
CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: $1BB Tentative Class Action Settlement Reached
CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: Class Action Settled for Close to $1 Billion
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Continued to July 2
CLUB 360: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Continued to September 13
COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
COLLECTO INC: Extension of Time to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Deadlines Extended in Blair
DANIEL LEBOLD: Hoelzer Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
DELTA AIR: Seeks Leave to File Documents Under Seal in Lomas Suit
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Katz's Bid for Conditional Certification OK'd
EVENTIDE CREDIT: Bids to Extend Class Certification Deadlines Nixed
EVOLUTION WELL: Faces Class Action Over FSLA Violations
EXCELLUS HEALTH: Class Settlement in Fero Gets Final Nod
FACEBOOK INC: B.C. Supreme Court Certifies Breach Class Action
FEDEX GROUND: Application for Leave to File Sur-Reply Denied
FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 11 Deadline
FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 11 Deadline
FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL: Robbins LLP Reminds of July 11 Deadline
GAMESTOP CORP: Worker Sues Over Alleged Labor Law Violations
GEICO INDEMNITY: Must Face Georgia Policyholders' Class Action
GEICO: Pimentel Bid to Compel Discovery Responses Nixed
GOLUB CORP: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to July 6
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Suit Over DeepMind NHS Patient Data Breach
GREEN BAY CORRECTIONAL: Smith Loses Bid for Class Certification
HALL FERRY: Tierney Wins Conditional Class Certification Bid
HOLTZMAN ENTERPRISES: Parties Seek Stay of Class Cert. Briefing
HORNBLOWER CRUISES: Seeks to Partially Dismiss Shaw's SAC
ILLINOIS: Fling of Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 6, 2023
INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES: Howard G. Smith Reminds of June 24 Deadline
INT'L BUSINESS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 6 Deadline
JK ENTERPRISE: Begley Bid for Conditional Status Granted in Part
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Narguess Noohi Seeks Class Certification
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Noohi Seeks to File Documents Under Seal
LEPRINO FOODS: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Vasquez Class Suit
LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of June 20 Deadline
LUCID GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 31 Deadline
LUCID GROUP: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of May 31 Deadline
MADISON COUNTY, IN: Inmates Class Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
MATCH GROUP: Must File Class Certification Response by May 25
MAZDA MOTOR: Seeks to File Docs Under Seal or with Redactions
MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Burgers' False Ads
MED-DATA INC: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to August 4
MEI PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
META PLATFORMS: Faces Suit Over Snapchat Lenses Facial Recognition
META PLATFORMS: Opposes Facebook Ad Class Action Notice Plan
META PLATFORMS: Plaintiffs to Get Settlement Payouts in BIPA Suit
META PLATFORMS: Settles Class Action in Ill. Over Privacy Claims
MILLIMAN INC: Healy Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd
MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Seeks Denial of Cole Class Status Bid
MORPHE COSMETICS: Faces Suit Over Eye Makeup Products' False Ads
MR. VACUUM: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Tavarez Class Suit
NATERA INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 27 Deadline
NATERA INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 27 Deadline
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Class Suit Wants Team to Drop New York from Name
NATIONAL SPINE: Seeks to File Confidential Documents Under Seal
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Antitrust Suit in Various Courts
ONTARIO: Class Action Members Have Until Aug. 6 to File Claim
ONTRAK INC: Faces Braun Shareholder Suit in California Court
ONTRAK INC: Faces Yildrim Shareholder Suit in California Court
ONTRAK INC: Farhar Shareholder Suit Ongoing in California
OSCAR HEALTH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 11 Deadline
OSCAR HEALTH: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of July 12 Deadline
OSCAR HEALTH: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 11 Deadline
OSCAR HEALTH: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 11 Deadline
PDS BIOTECHNOLOGY: Rosener Files Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
PERATON INC: Hicks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PERMANENT GENERAL: Lancaster Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PINEAPPLE HOSPITALITY: Redick Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
PLAINS ALL: Settles Oil Spill Class Action in Calif. for $230-MM
PLAN BENEFIT: Wasow LLP & Berzon LLP Named as Class Counsel
PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of June 7 Deadline
PORK KING GOOD: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PROFESSIONAL HEALTH: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PROGRESSIVE GULF: Vantree Files Suit in N.D. Mississippi
PROVIDENT BANK: Collins Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fees
PURE BLISS ORGANICS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
QUALCOMM INC: Faces Consumer Class Actions in California
QUANTUM INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of July 5 Deadline
QUINSTREET INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Robocalls
R&R RESTAURANTS: Hollis' Conditional Status Bid Granted in Part
RAINBOW APPAREL: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
RANK & STYLE: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RECKITT BENCKISER: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Sterling Suit
REGUS MANAGEMENT: Hilton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Nov. 1
RISKIFIED LTD: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 1 Deadline
ROBLOX CORPORATION: Faces Matlick Shareholder Suit in CA Court
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Consumer Suit Targets Defective Refrigerators
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Dunsmore Seeks Provisional Class Status
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Fleming, et al., File Class Certification Bid
SELECT REHABILITATION: Seeks to Stay Class Cert. Response Deadline
SIGNATURE CARE: Adolphe Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
SIREN SNACKS: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SLOWTIDE LLC: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOLID VENTURES: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SONOMA CREAMERY: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SPORTS RESEARCH: Seeks Reconsideration of April 15 Order
ST. LOUIS, MO: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Rescheduled to May 24
STAPLES THE OFFICE: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due August 29
STRATA SKIN: Faces Class Suit in California Court
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 13 Deadline
SUGAR FREEDOM: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUPER CARE INC: Stephanski Files Suit in C.D. California
SUPER CARE: Fails to Protect Patients' Personal, Health Info
SWEET JULY: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SWIFT TRANS: Bouissey, et al., Seek to Certify Truck Driver Class
TAPESTRY INC: Settlement in Ornelas Suit Wins Final Nod
TARGET CORP: Must Face Class Action Over iTunes Gift Cards
TEAM HEALTH: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought
TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD: Schilder Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TERRAFORM LABS: Luna Fiasco Escalates Into Class Action By Victims
TOMS RIVER TOWNSHIP: Smit Files RICO Suit in D. New Jersey
TOYOTA AUSTRALIA: To Pay Damages Over Defective Vehicles
TOYOTETSU NORTH AMERICA: Phelps Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky
TRANSFORCE INC: Class Cert. Briefing Sched Modified in Lim Suit
TRITERRAS INC: Settles Class Action Over Securities Violations
UNITED STATES: High Court Refuses to Review Residency Cert. Suit
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of July 12 Deadline
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of July 12 Deadline
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of July 12 Deadline
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Class Action
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Saxena White Files New Securities Class Action
VIMPELCOM LTD: Appointment Bids for Lead Plaintiff Tossed
VISION SOLAR: Seeks Dismissal of Calta Class Action
VMK INC: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Reeves Class Suit
WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Getchel Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
WALMART INC: Flores Must File Class Cert. Bid by Jan. 20, 2023
WALT DISNEY: Faces Suit Over Disneyland Dream Key Annual Passes
WATA GAMES: Faces Class Suit Over Manipulation of Retro Game Prices
WELCH FOODS: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Clevenger Suit
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Pressley Breach of Contract Suit Ongoing
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Shanklin Breach of Contract Suit Pending
WINMARK CORPORATION: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
YASSO INC: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
Z SUPPLY LLC: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
[*] Class Actions v. FTSE 100 Cos. Up 10% in 2021, Research Shows
[*] Malaysia Needs to Set Up Class Action Framework
*********
A2 MILK: Faces Third Breach Class Action Suit, Appoints New CFO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Berry at foodanddrinkbusiness.com.au reports that Thorn Law has
lodged a class action proceeding against a2 Milk in the High Court
of New Zealand with similar allegations to the two filed in
Australia.
In FY21 it recorded a 77.6 per cent EBITDA fall to NZ$123m, with
revenue down 30.3 per cent to NZ$1.21 billion.
Class actions were launched by Shine Lawyers and Slater and Gordon,
which alleged the company may have breached the Corporations Act
through misleading or deceptive conduct.
In November 2021, Shine Lawyers class actions practice leader Craig
Allsopp said, "Our claim alleges that a2 Milk had predicted its
baby formula would have a high sales performance in FY21,
contributing to a 30 per cent boost to its earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation, but the forecast
was misleading and caused our clients significant financial loss."
A2 Milk said it would defend the class action and considered it had
complied with disclosure obligations at all times. It denied any
liability and would vigorously defend proceedings, it said.
New CFO
A2 Milk Company has announced its new CFO David Muscat, after the
resignation of Race Strauss. Strauss joined the company in xx and
had overseen the company's performance and response to Covid.
CEO and managing director David Bortolussi said Strauss had plays a
key role in the the company's turnaround as well as implementing a
new ERP system.
Muscat is currently CFO of DIM Brands International, formerly Hanes
Europe Innerwear. Prior to that he was CFO of Hanes Australasia.
[GN]
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Court Certifies Specific Class in Loschiavo
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ronnie Loschiavo, et al.,
v. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-05069-MHW-CMV
(S.D. Ohio ), the Hon. Judge Michael H. Watson entered an order
certifying a class for only the eight locations at which the
Plaintiffs and Declarants worked.
Accordingly, the Court orders the Plaintiffs and Defendant to
confer and propose a mutually agreeable definition of the class. As
a starting point for the discussion, the Court proposes the
following definition:
"All current and former hourly employees of Advanced Drainage
Systems who (a) worked as a machine/line operator or yard
loader; (b) whose payroll records reflect that they worked 40
or more hours in any workweek beginning three years preceding
the instant Motion and continuing to the present; and (c)
worked at one of the following facilities: London, Ohio;
Wooster, Ohio; Owosso, Michigan; Clifford, Michigan; Muncy,
Pennsylvania; Hamilton, Ohio; Logan Township, New Jersey;
North Salt Lake, Utah.
The parties are also ordered to confer and propose a mutually
agreeable notice and consent to join form and method of delivery.
Ronnie Loschiavo and Shawn Selby sue Advanced Drainage under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and analogous state laws for
failure to properly pay overtime wages.
Advanced Drainage designs, manufactures and markets polypropylene
and polyethylene pipes, plastic leach field chambers and systems,
septic tanks and accessories, storm retention/detention and septic
chambers, polyvinyl chloride drainage structures, fittings, and
water filters and water separators.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sGL4uM at no extra charge.[CC]
AGRI STATS: Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Duryea, et al., v. Agri
Stats, Inc. et al., (RE PORK ANTITRUST LITIGATION) Case No.
0:18-cv-01776-JRT-HB (D. Minn.), the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order certifying case as a class action
for the following "Class" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
since the case fulfills all of Rule 23's requirements:
"All persons and entities who directly purchased one or more
of the following types of pork, or products derived from the
following types of pork, from Defendants, or their respective
subsidiaries or affiliates, for use or delivery in the United
States from June 29, 2014 through June 30, 2018: fresh or
frozen loins, shoulders, ribs, bellies, bacon, or hams. For
this lawsuit, pork excludes any product that is marketed as
organic or as no antibiotics ever (NAE); any product that is
fully cooked or breaded; any product other than bacon that is
marinated, flavored, cured, or smoked; and ready-to-eat
bacon."
Excluded from this Class are the Defendants, the officers,
directors or employees of any Defendant; any entity in which
any Defendant has a controlling interest; and any affiliate,
legal representative, heir or assign of any Defendant. Also
excluded from this Class are any federal, state or local
governmental entities, any judicial officer presiding over
this action and the members of his/her immediate family and
judicial staff, any juror assigned to this action, and any
Co-Conspirator identified in this action.
The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint the
named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and appoint Lockridge
Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. and Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP as Co-Lead
Class Counsel.
Agri Stats, Inc. was founded in 1985. The company's line of
business includes providing accounting, bookkeeping, and related
auditing services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 2, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wnbV1n at no
extra charge.[CC]
Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Plaintiff
Class, are:
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
Brian D. Clark, Esq.
Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
Arielle S. Wagner, Esq.
Stephen M. Owen, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
bdclark@locklaw.com
jcbourne@locklaw.com
aswagner@locklaw.com
smowen@locklaw.com
- and -
Clifford H. Pearson, Esq.
Daniel Warshaw, Esq.
Thomas J. Nolan, Esq.
Bobby Pouya, Esq.
Michael H. Pearson, Esq.
Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
Benjamin E. Shiftan, Esq.
Neil Swartzberg, Esq.
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 92403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
E-mail: cpearson@pswlaw.com
dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
tnolan@pswlaw.com
bpouya@pswlaw.com
mpearson@pswlaw.com
bsimon@pswlaw.com
bshiftan@pswlaw.com
nswartzberg@pswlaw.com
mweiner@pswlaw.com
ALDI INC: Motion to Dismiss Salmon Sustainability Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Blank at seafoodsource.com reports that Aldi's motion to
dismiss a seafood sustainability false claims class-action lawsuit
has been rejected for a second time.
On May 17, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois rejected Aldi's motion to dismiss a class-action lawsuit
brought by Jessica Rawson in May 2021 alleging the retailer made
deceptive sustainability marketing claims about its fresh Atlantic
salmon products. Rawson is represented by Richman Law and Policy,
which has brought several similar lawsuits against seafood
suppliers, including Cooke and Red Lobster.
Rawson has alleged Aldi's Atlantic salmon is sourced, at least in
part, from Chile, which has an "avoid" recommendation from the
Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch sustainability ratings system,
Richman Law said in a press release. Chile's net-pen aquaculture
systems grow thousands of fish in cages in natural waterways, which
Richman Law claimed is an ecologically dangerous practice.
"Because net pens are directly connected to the broader marine
environment, pollutants, diseases and escaped salmon may spread
from the farms into the environment. As cited in the complaint, one
scientific paper notes that the 'risks of damage to wild salmon
populations, ecosystems, and society are large'," Richman said.
The court's decision found Rawson's claim that Aldi's use of
"sustainable" was misleading to be plausible, even though Aldi's
fresh Atlantic salmon has Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP)
certification.
Representatives for Richman Law did not immediately respond to a
request for comment from SeafoodSource. A representative of the
Global Seafood Alliance, which operates the BAP program, said the
organization had no comment.
In February 2022, a separate court rejected Aldi's motion to
dismiss a lawsuit brought by GMO/Toxin Free USA alleging Aldi was
deceptive in its claims of sustainability for its fresh Atlantic
salmon products. Filed in January 2021, that lawsuit alleges Aldi's
use of the phrase "Simple. Sustainable. Seafood." on its Atlantic
salmon products "leads consumers to believe that the salmon was
farmed in accordance with high environmental and animal welfare
standards, but in reality, the salmon are sourced unsustainably,"
GMO/Toxin Free USA said in a press release.
Separately, a judge in U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California has not yet ruled on Red Lobster's motion to dismiss
in a similar lawsuit brought by Richman Law.
Filed in June 2021, the class-action complaint alleges that Red
Lobster's farmed shrimp and Maine lobster are not sustainably
sourced, as the company claims they are. Instead, the restaurant
chain's shrimp is sourced from "industrial shrimp farms that do not
employ the highest environmental or animal welfare standards," the
complaint stated, and the restaurant chain's Maine lobster is
sourced from suppliers that use environmentally destructive
practices that threaten endangered populations of North American
right whales, according to the complaint.
The judge in that case has extended the Red Lobster's motion to
dismiss until later in May. [GN]
ALL HOURS: Adler TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL ADLER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. All Hours
Plumbing Drain Cleaning, Case No. 2:21-cv-00141-DBP (D. Utah), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying a class with respect to her claims for the
Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. section 227 ("TCPA");
2. designating the Plaintiff as class representative; and
3. designating the Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel.
The Plaintiff moves to certify the following proposed Class:
"All persons in the United States who on or about February
22, 2021 were delivered the following prerecorded voice call
by the Defendant through the VoiceShot platform:
"Hi, Steve here with All Hours Plumbing Heating and Air. With
the changing temperatures, have you found yourself being a
thermostat disc jockey with no audience? We wanna stop
playing twist and shout with the thermostat and help you make
that tax refund that you may have received last for years by
investing in your biggest purchase: your home. Now is perfect
time to update your home's furnace and air conditioning. This
week only we have a special offer for our premium clients.
The first 50 furnace and AC combo installations scheduled and
completed will receive a PlayStation 5. So call us today to
learn more and book your appointment today at 801-997-9591.
That's 801-997-9591, and you have an awesome, great day."
The total number of putative Class members is 3,347."
All Hours is a full-service plumber & HVAC contractor serving Salt
Lake County, Utah County, Davis County and Park City.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 2, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38tc5ex at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
IJH LAW
1200 Brickell Ave Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131
E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com
Telephone: (786) 496-4469
The Defendant is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
Telephone: 954-400-4713
- and -
Matthew J. Morrison, Esq.
MORRISON LAW OFFICE
1887 N 270 E
Orem, UT 84057
801-845-2581
E-mail: matt@oremlawoffice.com
ALLSTATE FIRE: Settlement Class in Erby Conditionally Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL ERBY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND
CASUALTY INS. CO., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-04944-PBT (E.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Petrese B. Tucker entered an order that:
1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 the Court conditionally
certifies the following Settlement Class:
"All persons who submitted a private-passenger auto
physical damage claim for a leased vehicle under an
Allstate Pennsylvania policy during the Class Period whose
claim was adjusted by Allstate as a total-loss claim, and
whose claim resulted in a Total Loss Claim Payment by
Allstate, and who were not paid Full Sales Tax."
2. The Plaintiff Michael Erby is an adequate Class
Representative for the Settlement Class.
3. The Plaintiff's Counsel are adequate Class Counsel.
4. The Court approves the Class Notice of Settlement.
5. The Court also approves the Notice Program as set forth in
Section IV of the Settlement Agreement.
6. If the Settlement Agreement is terminated or not
consummated for any reason whatsoever, the conditional
certification of the Settlement Class shall be void. The
Plaintiff reserves all of his rights, including the right
to continue with the litigation pending at the time of the
Settlement should the Settlement Agreement not be
consummated.
7. Counsel for the Class (Class Counsel) are as follows:
Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
- and -
D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
707 Grant Street, Suite 125
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918
Telephone: 412-281-7229
- and -
Jason Medure, Esq.
MEDURE BONNER BELLISSIMO, LLC
713 Wilmington Avenue
New Castle, PA 16101
Telephone: 724-653-7855
- and -
Larry Weisberg, Esq.
Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
Steve T. Mahan, Esq.
Stephen P. Gunther, Esq.
MCCARTHY WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380
Telephone: 717-238-5707
8. The Class Notice to be provided as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement as filed with the Court is hereby
found to be the best practicable means of providing notice
under the circumstances and, when completed, shall
constitute due and sufficient notice of the proposed
Settlement and the Final Approval Hearing to all persons
and entities affected by and/or entitled to participate in
the Settlement, in full compliance with the notice
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, due process, the
Constitution of the United States, the laws of
Pennsylvania and all other applicable laws. The Notices
are accurate, objective, informative and provide Class
members with all of the information necessary to make an
informed decision regarding their participation in the
Settlement and its fairness.
9. Any member of the Settlement Class that wishes to be
excluded from the Settlement Class must send a written
Request for Exclusion to the Claims Administrator, so that
it is received by the Claims Administrator at the address
indicated in the Notice on or before the close of the opt
out period.
10. Any member of the Settlement Class who does not properly
and timely request exclusion from the Settlement Class
shall be bound by all the terms and provisions of the
Settlement Agreement, whether or not such person objected
to the Settlement and whether or not such person made a
claim upon, or participated in, the Settlement Fund
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.
11. A hearing on the Settlement is scheduled to be held before
this Court on May 24, 2022, at 10:30 a.m.
12. Objections, along with any notices of intent to appear,
must be filed no later than 45 days from the Notice Date.
13. If counsel is appearing on behalf of more than one
Class Member, counsel must identify each such Class Member
and each Class Member must have complied with the
requirements of this Order. These documents must be filed
with the Clerk of the Court at the following address:
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania Office of the Clerk of Court James A. Byrne
Federal Courthouse 601 Market Street, Room 2609
Philadelphia, PA 19106-1797
14. Only Class Members who have filed and served valid and
timely notices of objection shall be entitled to be heard
at the Final Approval Hearing. Any Class Member who does
not timely file and serve an objection in writing to the
Settlement, entry of Final Judgment, or to Class Counsel’s
application for fees, costs, and expenses, in accordance
with the procedure set forth in the Class Notice and
mandated in this Order, shall be deemed to have waived any
such objection by appeal, collateral attack, or otherwise.
15. Persons wishing to be heard at the hearing are required
to file written comments or objections and indicate in
their written comments or objections their intention to
appear at the hearing. Settlement Class Members need not
appear at the hearing or take any other action to indicate
their approval.
16. All members of the Settlement Class who do not personally
and timely request to be excluded from the Class are
enjoined from proceeding against the Defendant for the
claims made in the Complaint.
17. Upon approval of the Settlement provided for in this
Settlement Agreement, each and every time period and
provision thereof shall be deemed incorporated herein as
if expressly set forth and shall have the full force and
effect of an Order of this Court.
18. All reasonable costs incurred in notifying members of the
Settlement Class, as well as administering the Settlement
Agreement, shall be paid as set forth in the Settlement.
Allstate Fire operates as an insurance firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37NceZT at no extra charge.[CC]
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Cert. Briefing Sched Sought in Hilario
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TISHA HILARIO,
individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-05459-WHO
(N.D. Cal.), the the Parties agree and stipulate as follows:
1. The Class Certification Briefing Schedule shall be set as
follows:
a. Motion to be filed by: July 1, 2022
b. Response to be filed by: August 25, 2022.
c. Reply to be filed by: Sept. 29, 2022.
d. Hearing to occur on: Oct. 13, 2022.
The Allstate Corporation is an American insurance company,
headquartered in Northfield Township, Illinois, near Northbrook
since 1967.
A copy of Parties' motion to certify class dated April 29, 2022 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wtbXDx at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David R. Shane, Esq.
SHANE LAW
1000 Drakes Landing Rd No. 200
Greenbrae, CA 94904-3027
Telephone: (415) 464-2020
Facsimile: (415) 464-2024
E-mail: dshane@shanelaw1.com
- and -
Brian Eldridge, Esq.
Steven Hart, Esq.
HART MCLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE
22 W Washington St, Ste 1600
Chicago, IL 60602-1615
Telephone: (312) 955-0545
Facsimile: (312) 971-9243
E-mail: beldridge@hmelegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Sonia R. Martin, Esq.
Mark L. Hanover, Esq.
Isabella c. hsu, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
One Market Plaza
Spear Tower, 24th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 267-4000
Facsimile: (415) 267 4198
E-mail: sonia.martin@dentons.com
mark.hanover@dentons.com
isabella.hsu@dentons.com
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Kombol's Bid for Class Certification Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BO KOMBOL, individually
and on behalf other persons similarly situated, v. Allstate
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00070-SPW (D. Mont.),
the Hon. Judge Susan P. Watters entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs motion for class certification:
-- Class I -- The GCOP Class
All Allstate policyholders in Montana: (a) Who suffered a
structural loss under an Allstate homeowner policy; (b)From
April 27, 2012 to present (because the Montana breach-of-
contract statute of limitations is 8 years); (c) Where
Allstate accepted liability; (d)But where the ACV payment
did not include GCOP, unless the insured was paid that full
amount of GCOP as part of the RCV payment.
-- Class II -- The UTPA Class
"All members of Class I from April 27, 2018 to the date the
class is certified (owing to the two-year statute of
limitations on UTPA actions)."
The proposed class action regards Allstate's alleged failure to
incorporate and adhere to an objective standard for determining
when an insured's covered structural repair requires the services
of a general contractor and the subsequent inclusion of sums for
general contractor overhead and profit ("GCOP") in the insured's
claim reimbursement.
In order to recover for loss or damage to insured property, an
individual must file a claim with their insurance provider. That
insurance provider will then typically assign a claims adjuster to
inspect the scope of the property damage and determine both the
value of that property and what services will be required for
repairs.
The adjuster creates an estimate based on their inspection and
expertise to review with the insured. That estimate typically
describes the damage to the structure, the present value of the
structure, and what costs will be required to repair or replace the
structure to its pre-loss condition. Once the scope of the loss is
agreed upon by the insured and the insurer, the insurer issues a
payment to the insured for the actual cash value ("ACV") of the
structure. The ACV represents the agreed upon cost to repair the
structure minus depreciation and the policy deductible.
Insureds have the option to pocket that ACV payment or, should the
insured wish to proceed with repairs, the insurer will pay the
previously withheld depreciation—termed the replacement cost
value ("RCV") -- upon submission of proof the repairs were
completed.
For particularly extensive or complex repairs, insured will often
need to hire a general contractor to coordinate the services of
multiple trades and assist in the repairs. For most insurers, when
the insurance adjuster determines that it is reasonably likely the
repair will require a general contractor, the adjuster includes an
industry standard 20% for GCOP in the repair estimate. Whether it
is reasonably likely a repair will require a general contractor is
intended to be an objective standard for adjusters to follow when
determining the amount of loss.
The Plaintiff alleges Allstate fails to follow an objective
standard in determining the need for GCOP and instead allows
adjusters to determine GCOP on an individualized, subjective basis
of when "warranted."
The Plaintiff claims this leads to disparate results depending on
what adjuster is handling the claim and is inconsistent with the
information provided to insureds. Further, "it is inconsistent with
a wide body of case law where courts almost unanimously conclude
that, where the insured would be reasonably likely to need a
general contractor in repairing or replacing damaged property, GCOP
has to be paid on an ACV payment."
Allstate is a national provider of several types of insurance
including auto, home, life, motorcycle, and renters.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NfUPrI at no extra charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Shareholder Suit for Misusing Customer Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Rosenblatt, writing for The Seattle Times, reports that
taking a new approach to bringing attention to how Amazon uses
individuals' data, a shareholder is suing Jeff Bezos, Andy Jassy
and 17 other Amazon leaders he claims knowingly allowed the company
to violate state laws.
Amazon has already come under fire for how its uses biometric data,
things like fingerprints and facial images. It's been accused of
collecting and using individuals' images without their consent as
well as violating state laws that prohibit companies from profiting
off individuals' biometric data.
Usually, legal actions are targeting the company. This time,
shareholder Stephen Nelson's lawsuit is aimed at Amazon's top
decision makers, on behalf of the company itself.
The group of defendants -- which includes executives like founder
and Executive Chairman Bezos; CEO Jassy; Chief Financial Officer
Brian Olsavsky; and General Counsel David Zapolsky, as well as all
11 members of the board of directors -- knowingly allowed Amazon to
make false statements about its use of biometric data, Nelson
alleges in the lawsuit filed in a U.S. District Court in Seattle in
April. Company higher-ups, his attorneys claim, "made a conscious
choice to turn a blind eye to Amazon's conduct."
Amazon executives and board members "caused substantial financial
and reputational harm to Amazon," the lawsuit reads.
Amazon did not return requests for comment on the lawsuit.
Amazon, like many tech companies, uses biometric data to offer
customers the features they've come to expect. Its Alexa virtual
assistant uses voice recognition to answer user questions about the
weather. A new feature for the Echo Show 15 device announced in
September allows Alexa to use visual cues to identify an individual
when they walk into view of the camera and offer a personalized
to-do list, calendar and music selection.
Amazon Web Services, the cloud computing arm of the business,
stores some biometric data from its customers and those customers'
employees, according to the lawsuit, like fingerprints to gain
access to a building, voiceprints to identify callers and face
scans from gamers.
Amazon launched its facial recognition service, Rekognition, in
2016 for customers to build "powerful visual search and discovery"
into applications, according to a blog post on its website. Since
then, it has been used in Amazon's smart home systems, Alexa and
other camera devices, and Amazon has marketed the technology to law
enforcement and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Rekognition has raised alarm bells for activists and shareholders,
who say the facial surveillance tech could "unfairly and
disproportionately" target people of color. Amazon shareholders
will vote on a proposal at the company's annual meeting May 25 to
request a report on how Rekognition is used and marketed, and the
extent to which it could violate privacy and civil rights.
In the summer of 2020, Amazon put a one-year moratorium on the sale
and use of Rekognition by law enforcement.
In a statement urging shareholders to vote against that proposal,
Amazon's board of directors said the company is "committed to the
responsible use of our artificial intelligence and machine learning
products and services."
In response to growing concerns about how and where biometric data
was being used, Illinois passed legislation in 2008 to establish
guidelines for how companies and other entities could use an
individual's information. Those guidelines require companies to get
consent before collecting data and to tell individuals, in writing,
what information is being collected, why and for how long.
Washington passed a similar law in 2017, and roughly 20 states now
have some safeguards in place.
Since those laws went into effect, tech companies including Amazon,
Microsoft, Google, TikTok and Meta have faced litigation for
allegedly misusing individuals' biometric data. This month, facial
recognition startup Clearview AI agreed to restrict the use of its
massive collection of face images following a two-year lawsuit that
alleged it collected people's photos without their consent.
Amazon is facing at least 14 class action lawsuits and 75,000
individual cases, according to Nelson's court filing.
With legal fees and potential fines to come, Nelson is arguing
Amazon's executives and board of directors are liable for the
consequences of those lawsuits. The potential damages are
"astronomical to the point the company could be put out of business
if the violations are not immediately addressed, stopped and
remedied," the lawsuit reads.
Nelson is accusing Amazon's decision makers of misleading investors
about the financial and legal risks associated with its use of
biometric data and potential violations to Illinois' Biometric
Privacy Information Act. Faced with its own class action lawsuit,
Facebook agreed to pay $650 million in February 2021 over the
company's use of facial recognition technology.
In legal filings, Amazon's board of directors dismissed shareholder
concerns about the risks, the lawsuit alleges, and defendants
listed in the complaint signed off on "false statements" about
Amazon's compliance with state laws.
The defendants' conduct "jeopardizes and harms one of Amazon's most
important (and fragile) assets: consumer trust," the lawsuit reads.
"Reputational damage is particularly devastating for technology
companies like Amazon."
Nelson declined to comment through his lawyer, Gregory Wesner of
Herman Jones, based in Atlanta.
The lawsuit is asking the court to direct Amazon to change its
biometric data practices, as well as how it governs itself
internally.
It suggests appointing board members with a background in
cybersecurity and consumer privacy, reviewing the company's
policies for "confidential reporting" and fine-tuning its
investigative process for complaints that come from within Amazon.
[GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 5 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Amazon.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMZN)
between February 1, 2019 and April 5, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important July 5, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Amazon 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 Amazon class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5465 or 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 July 5, 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
handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. 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 made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Amazon engaged in anticompetitive conduct in its private-label
business practices, including giving Amazon products preference
over those of its competitors and using third-party sellers'
non-public data to compete with them; (2) the foregoing exposed
Amazon to a heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny and/or
enforcement actions; (3) Amazon's revenues derived from its
private-label business were in part the product of impermissible
conduct and thus unsustainable; and (4) as a result, the
defendants' public statements throughout the Class Period were
materially false and/or misleading. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Amazon class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5465 or 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]
AMAZON.COM INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of July 5 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Attention Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") (NASDAQ: AMZN) shareholders:
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on May 16 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
between February 1, 2019 and April 5, 2022.
If you suffered a loss on your investment in Amazon, contact us
about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost
or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/amazon-com-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=27227&wire=4
ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Amazon includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Amazon
engaged in anticompetitive conduct in its private-label business
practices, including giving Amazon products preference over those
of its competitors and using third-party sellers' non-public data
to compete with them; (ii) the foregoing exposed Amazon to a
heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement actions;
(iii) Amazon's revenues derived from its private-label business
were in part the product of impermissible conduct and thus
unsustainable; and (iv) as a result, the defendants' public
statements throughout the class period were materially false and/or
misleading.
DEADLINE: July 5, 2022
Aggrieved Amazon investors only have until July 5, 2022 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required
to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
AMAZON.COM: June 2 Extension to File Class Cert Response Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAN HAMILTON, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00434-PAB-STV (D. Colo.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the briefing
deadlines for the Plaintiff's motion to certify class action.
Specifically, the Parties seek to extend the deadline for Defendant
to file a response to the Plaintiff's Motion to June 2, 2022; and
to extend the deadline for Plaintiff to file a reply to the
Defendant's response to June 30, 2022.
The Plaintiff filed his motion to certify class action on April 14,
2022.
The Defendant's response to the Motion is currently due May 5,
2022.
The Plaintiff's reply to the Defendant's Response to the Motion is
anticipated to be due May 19, 2022.
Pursuant to this Court's practice standards (I(G)(2)), the Parties
file this motion no later than three business days before the date
the Defendant's response is due.
The Defendant requests its extension of time due to the complexity
and significance of issues raised in the Motion, which, if granted,
would result in notice issuing to a class of over 10,000
individuals. The Plaintiff requests its extension of time in order
to allow sufficient time to reply because lead counsel will be
unavailable from May 13 through June 16, 2022.
Accordingly, the Parties request an additional 28 days for
Defendant to file its response to the Motion, up to and including
June 2, 2022.
With the extension of the Defendant's response deadline,
Plaintiff's reply is anticipated to be due June 16, 2022.
Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yFJJs9 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David H. Miller, Esq.
Victoria E. Guzman, Esq.
THE SAWAYA & MILLER LAW FIRM
1600 Ogden Street
Denver, CO 80218
Telephone: (303) 551-7667
E-mail: dhmiller@sawayalaw.com
vguzman@sawaya.law.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jennifer S. Harpole, Esq.
Sarah K. Watt, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 800
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 629-6200
E-mail: jharpole@littler.com
swatt@littler.com
AMERICAN LANDMARK: Court Sets Class Cert. Deadline, Briefing Sched
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Diez v. American Landmark
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-20189 (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge K. Michael
Moore entered an order setting deadline and briefing schedule for
class certification.
The Court said, "The Plaintiff files a motion requesting deadline
and briefing schedule with Respect to their motion for class
certification. The Plaintiff requests that the Court set September
21, 2022 as the deadline for Plaintiff to file her Motion for Class
Certification. The Plaintiff also requests that the Court set a
30-day deadline for Defendant to file a response and a 14-day
deadline for Plaintiff to file a reply."
The Plaintiff argues that this briefing schedule will not affect
any deadlines as set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order. The
Defendant does not oppose the Motion.
American Landmark is a national multifamily owner-operator
specializing in multifamily acquisition, repositioning and property
management.
The nature of suit states other statutes -- other statutory
actions.[CC]
APPLE INC: Court Dismissed Suit Over Defective MacBook Pro Models
-----------------------------------------------------------------
patentlyapple.com reports that Apple defeated an appeal to revive a
would-be class action over allegedly defective MacBook Pro
displays, after the Ninth Circuit said that the company had no duty
to disclose the flaw.
The lawsuit alleged that MacBook Pro models released after 2016
were designed with cables that are too short and eventually fail
with ordinary wear and tear. The plaintiffs claimed violations
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition
Law.
The lawsuit also alleged fraudulent concealment under a common law
theory, and violations of deceptive trade statutes in Washington,
Florida, New Jersey, Michigan, Alaska, Missouri, Massachusetts, and
Texas. For more, read the full report by Bloomberg Law.
For those interested in the background of the lawsuit, review the
court document regarding Taleshpour v. Apple Inc. here.
For legal buffs, the 30-minute video below presents the appeal of a
dismissal of a diversity putative class action against Apple, Inc.,
alleging that Apple MacBook Pro computers had defective displays
that occurred on May 10, 2020. The ruling made dismissed the case.
[GN]
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Siri Secret Recordings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ruchi Gupta, writing for Market Realist, reports that Apple's
voice-operated Siri assistant is a powerful technology that adds
value to various Apple products and services. However, the
technology has put the the iPhone maker in trouble, with a
class-action lawsuit threatening to dent its reputation and balance
sheet.
Apple's Siri answers users' questions and performs various tasks
through voice commands. On your iPhone, Siri searches the internet
to deliver answers or suggestion to you, on through your HomePod
smart speaker, Siri responds to your voice commands, such as
telling it to turn off lights in a room. Siri belongs to the same
group of voice agents as Amazon's Alexa and Google's Google
Assistant, which have also both raised privacy questions.
You start Siri by speaking the activation words, "Hey Siri." Once
prompted, Siri listens to and records what you say, and then acts
on your instructions. Siri recordings may be reviewed by Apple
employees to improve the technology. However, controversy over
other people reviewing users' private recordings led Apple to
adjust its review method, resulting in computer-generated
transcripts being used for reviews instead of recorded audio.
The Siri class-action lawsuit, explained
Although Siri is helpful for performing various tasks, a number of
Siri users sued Apple for allegedly violating their privacy by
listening to conversations that were not meant for it. Their
complaint is that Siri recorded their conversions without being
prompted to do so.
The conversations have ranged from private consultations with a
doctor to discussions about shoes and sunglasses. Some users have
even alleged that they started receiving targeted ads for the
products they discussed.
A federal judge in California has allowed Siri users to pursue a
class-action lawsuit against Apple. The plaintiffs will need to
prove that Apple breach their privacy or contract. Apple denies any
wrongdoing.
Apple's iCloud class-action lawsuit cost it millions of dollars
Apple agreed to pay $14.8 million to settle a class-action lawsuit
related to its iCloud storage service, for storing users' iCloud
data on third-party servers instead of its own. While denying
wrongdoing, Apple settled the lawsuit to avoid going to trial.
Apple's strong balance sheet means it could easily absorb a
financial hit for settling the Siri lawsuit, but it could still
suffer significant reputational damage.
How does Siri make money for Apple?
Apple acquired the Siri technology in 2010, in a deal estimated to
have cost it more than $200 million. In Siri, Apple saw an
opportunity to break into the mobile search market. Although Apple
doesn't sell Siri as a standalone item, it uses it to enhance the
appeal of several of its products. [GN]
APPLE INC: Must File Opposition to Supplemental Bid by June 24
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IN RE APPLE INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 4:19-cv-02033-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order:
1. The Defendants shall file any opposition to the
Supplemental Motion no later than June 24, 2022;
2. Lead Plaintiff shall file any reply in support of the
Supplemental Motion no later than August 26, 2022;
On May 5, 2021, the Lead Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class
Certification.
On February 4, 2022, the Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the Motion. The Order denied without prejudice Lead
Plaintiff's Motion with respect to holders of options on Apple
stock and contemplated that Lead Plaintiff may "re-seek
certification with respect to this category of investors."
On March 4, 2022, the Court issued an order setting a deadline of
April 15, 2022 for Lead Plaintiff to supplement its class
certification motion regarding holders of options on Apple stock.
On April 15, 2022, Lead Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Motion to
Certify Class of Apple Options Investors.
Lead Plaintiff has agreed to make Professor Chance available for
deposition on June 8, 2022.
Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in consumer electronics, software and online services
headquartered in Cupertino, California.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PyRvdo at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
1 Montgomery St. Ste. 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
The Attorneys for the Defendants Apple Inc., Timothy Cook and Luca
Maestri, are:
James N. Kramer, Esq.
Alexander K. Talarides, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
The Orrick Building
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
Telephone: (415) 773-5700
Facsimile: (415) 773-5759
E-mail: jkramer@orrick.com
atalarides@orrick.com
APPLE INC: Settlement in Maldonado Suit Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICKY MALDONADO, et al.,
v. APPLE, INC, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-04067-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order granting final
approval of settlement; awarding attorney's fees, costs, and
service awards as follows:
1. The Court finally approves and confirms the
settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and
finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the Settlement Class under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. The following "Certified Class" was previously certified
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure:
"All individuals who purchased AppleCare or AppleCare+,
either directly or through the iPhone Upgrade Program, on
or after July 20, 2012, and received a remanufactured
replacement Device."
3. The Class period cutoff date is September 30, 2021.
4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), the
Court previously appointed Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro,
LLP as Class Counsel, and the named Plaintiffs, Vicky
Maldonado and Justin Carter, as the Class Representatives
on behalf of the Certified Class.
5. The Plaintiffs' notice of the Class Settlement to the
Certified Class was the best notice practicable under the
circumstances. The notice satisfied due process and
provided adequate information to the Certified Class of
all matters relating to the Class Settlement, and fully
satisfied the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(c)(2) and (e)(1).
6. 153 Members of the Certified Class timely and validly
requested exclusion from the Certified Class, and are
excluded from those Certified Class identified. Such
persons are not included in or bound by this Order as it
relates to the specific settlement for which they opted-
out. Such persons are not entitled to any recovery of the
settlement proceeds obtained through the Class Settlement.
7. No valid objections were filed regarding the Class
Settlement.
8. The Court finds that Plaintiffs' proposed Plan of
Allocation, proposing to pay Settlement Class members an
equal amount per remanufactured replacement device they
received, is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
9. The Court awards to Class Counsel:
a. Costs in the amount of $1,397,165.53; and
b. Attorneys’ Fees in the amount of $26,876,027.50.
10. The Court awards to Class Representatives:
a. An incentive award to Vicky Maldonado in the amount of
$15,000; and
b. An incentive award to Justin Carter in the amount of
$12,500.
Apple is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in consumer electronics, software and online services
headquartered in Cupertino, California.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3syT54P at no extra charge.[CC]
ARQIT QUANTUM: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 5 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a securities class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who (i) purchased or
acquired the securities of Arqit Quantum Inc. ("Arqit" or the
"Company") (ARQQ, ARQQW), f/k/a Centricus Acquisition Corp.
("Centricus") (CENH, CENHU, CENHW) between September 7, 2021 and
April 18, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (ii) held
Centricus securities as of the record date for the special meeting
of shareholders held on August 31, 2021 to consider approval of the
merger between Arqit and Centricus (the "Merger"). The lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.
Arqit is a cybersecurity company that has pioneered a unique
quantum encryption technology. Arqit claimed its quantum encryption
technology would be secure against current and future forms of
cyberattacks, including from a quantum computer.
On May 28, 2021, Arqit filed with the SEC a Form F-4 Merger
Proposal Registration (the "Proxy Statement") for the Merger. Then,
on July 30, 2021, Arqit filed with the SEC a prospectus (the
"Prospectus") for the Merger, which forms part of the Proxy
Statement.
According to the Complaint, the Proxy Statement contained a Risk
Factors section which failed to discuss the risks to Arqit
surrounding the adoption of new communications technologies
necessary for Arqit's encryption technology; namely, that Arqit
needed certain new protocols and standards for telecommunications,
cloud computing, and internet services that currently were not
supported.
Plaintiff also alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made misleading statements about Arqit's business because: (1)
Arqit's proposed encryption technology would require widespread
adoption of new protocols and standards of for telecommunications;
(2) British cybersecurity officials questioned the viability of
Arqit's proposed encryption technology in a meeting in 2020; (3)
the British government was not an Arqit customer but, rather,
providing grants to Arqit; and (4) Arqit had little more than an
early-stage prototype of its encryption system at the time of the
Merger.
On April 18, 2022, The Wall Street Journal (the "WSJ") published an
article entitled, "British Encryption Startup Arqit Overstates Its
Prospects, Former Staff and Others Say." The WSJ article stated, in
part: "When the company secured its Nasdaq listing last autumn, its
revenue consisted of a handful of government grants and small
research contracts, and its signature product was an early-stage
prototype unable to encrypt anything in practical use, according to
[former employees and other people familiar with the company]."
Further, "[t]he encryption technology the company hinges on-a
system to protect against next-generation quantum computers-might
never apply beyond niche uses, numerous people inside and outside
the company warned, unless there were a major overhaul of internet
protocols." On this news, the price of Arqit stock price declined
over 17% to close at $12.49 per share on April 18, 2022.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 5, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased or held the securities of Arqit Quantum Inc.
(f/k/a Centricus Acquisition Corp.) as discussed above, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
Arqit Quantum Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact
Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years. [GN]
ARQIT QUANTUM: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 5 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 15
disclosed that purchasers of Arqit Quantum Inc. f/k/a Centricus
Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: ARQQ; ARQQW) securities between
September 7, 2021 and April 18, 2022, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period") and/or all holders of Centricus securities as of
the record date for the special meeting of shareholders held on
August 31, 2021 to consider approval of the merger between Arqit
and Centricus (the "Merger") and entitled to vote on the Merger
have until July 5, 2022 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in
Glick v. Arqit Quantum Inc. f/k/a Centricus Acquisition Corp., No.
22-cv-02604 (E.D.N.Y). Commenced on May 6, 2022, the Arqit class
action lawsuit charges Arqit and certain of its top executive
officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered significant losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Arqit class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-arqit-quantum-inc-f-k-a-centricus-acquisition-corp,join.html
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead
plaintiff motions for the Arqit class action lawsuit must be filed
with the court no later than July 5, 2022.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Arqit is a cybersecurity company that has
purportedly pioneered a unique quantum encryption technology. Arqit
alleged its quantum encryption technology would be secure against
current and future forms of cyberattacks, including from a quantum
computer. Centricus was a special purpose acquisition corporation
("SPAC" or blank check company) formed for the purpose of effecting
a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock
purchase, reorganization, or similar business combination with one
or more businesses. Prior to the Merger, Centricus shares traded on
the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol CENHU.
The Arqit class action lawsuit alleges that defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Arqit's proposed encryption technology would require widespread
adoption of new protocols and standards for telecommunications;
(ii) British cybersecurity officials questioned the viability of
Arqit's proposed encryption technology in a meeting in 2020; (iii)
the British government was not an Arqit customer but, rather,
providing grants to Arqit; (iv) Arqit had little more than an
early-stage prototype of its encryption system at the time of the
Merger; and (v) as a result, defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On April 18, 2022, The Wall Street Journal published a story
entitled: "British Encryption Startup Arqit Overstates Its
Prospects, Former Staff and Others Say." The Wall Street Journal
revealed, among other things, that Arqit's "signature product was
an early-stage prototype unable to encrypt anything in practical
use," Arqit's encryption technology "might never apply beyond niche
uses, numerous people inside and outside the company warned, unless
there were a major overhaul of internet protocols," "British
cybersecurity officials questioned the viability of Arqit's
proposed approach to encryption technology," "[t]he U.S. National
Security Agency and the [National Counterintelligence and Security
Center] published separate assessments in recent years warning
against using satellite-based encryption systems like those Arqit
is proposing," "[t]he encryption system . . . depends on the broad
adoption of new protocols and standards for telecommunications,
cloud computing and internet services that currently aren't widely
supported," and that "[t]he people familiar with the matter said
that the bulk of [Arqit's] committed revenue isn't from selling its
product and that at its public launch, [Arqit] had little more than
an early-stage prototype of its encryption system." On this news,
the price of Arqit stock fell by more than 17%, damaging
investors.
Robbins Geller has launched a dedicated SPAC Task Force to protect
investors in blank check companies and seek redress for corporate
malfeasance. Comprised of experienced litigators, investigators,
and forensic accountants, the SPAC Task Force is dedicated to
rooting out and prosecuting fraud on behalf of injured SPAC
investors. The rise in blank check financing poses unique risks to
investors. Robbins Geller's SPAC Task Force represents the vanguard
of ensuring integrity, honesty, and justice in this rapidly
developing investment arena.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Arqit
securities during the Class Period and/or all holders of Centricus
securities as of the record date for the special meeting of
shareholders held on August 31, 2021 to consider approval of the
Merger and entitled to vote on the Merger to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the Arqit class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff
is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the Arqit class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Arqit class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the Arqit class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading complex class action firms
representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm is
ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for investors last year
alone – more than triple the amount recovered by any other
plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller's
attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history, including the largest securities class
action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Litig. Please visit the following page for more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
AT&T MOBILITY: Razo Loses Prelim Approval Bid of Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS M. SALAS RAZO, on his
own behalf of and all others similarly situated, v. AT&T MOBILITY
SERVICES, LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, Case No.
1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order
denying the plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class
settlement.
Specifically, the Settlement provides for the following payments
from the gross settlement amount:
-- The Class Representative will receive a service payment of
$10,000;
-- Class counsel will receive $191,666.76 in attorneys' fees,
which equals 33 1/3 % of the gross settlement amount, and
expenses up to $10,000.00;
-- The California Labor and Workforce Development Agency
shall receive $7,500 from the total PAGA payment of
$10,000; and
-- The Settlement Administrator will receive up to $30,000
for fees and expenses.
The Court said, "Razo fails to carry the burden to show the
prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are satisfied for the proposed
settlement class, and the Court is unable to certify the class."
Razo was employed as a sales representative at the AT&T Mobility
Store located in Madera, California. Razo asserts he worked for
AT&T "for approximately eleven years" until his termination in June
2018. He alleges AT&T "routinely failed to properly calculate the
overtime and double time rate of pay." Razo asserts AT&T "failed to
include its employees' total compensation including bonuses and
commissions when calculating the regular rate for the purposes of
determining overtime wages owed and thus routinely underpaid
employees for overtime wages owed." Razo contends this underpayment
was "evidenced in [his] paycheck and accompanying wage statement
issued June 13, 2018."
Razo asserted the claims were brought on behalf of himself and
classes including:
1. "The Plaintiff Class": All persons who have been, or
currently are, employed by Defendant and who held, or
hold, job positions which the Defendant have classified as
"non-exempt" personnel in the State of California. (The
Class Period is the period from August 27, 2015, through
and including the date judgment is rendered in this
matter).
2. "The Terminated Sub Class": All members of the Plaintiff
Class whose employment ended during the Class Period (The
Class Period is the period from August 27, 2015, through
and including the date judgment is rendered in this
matter).
AT&T Mobility provides wireless voice and data communications
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sGLpOg at no extra charge.[CC]
AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of July 12 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Axsome
Therapeutics, Inc. ("Axsome" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AXSM). The
class action is on behalf of a class consisting of those who
acquired Axsome securities between December 30, 2019 and April 22,
2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased the shares of Axsome Therapeutics, Inc.
and incurred losses are advised 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 Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. you may,
no later than July 12, 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
Axsome Therapeutics, Inc.
The filed complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:
-- Axsome's CMC practices were deficient with respect to AXS-07 and
its manufacturing process;
-- as a result, Axsome was unlikely to submit the AXS-07 NDA on its
initially represented timeline;
-- the foregoing CMC issues remained unresolved at the time that
the FDA reviewed the AXS-07 NDA;
-- accordingly, the FDA was unlikely to approve the AXS-07 NDA;
-- as a result of all the foregoing, Axsome had overstated AXS-07's
regulatory and commercial prospects; and
-- as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
On November 5, 2020, Axsome issued a press release reporting the
Company's third quarter 2020 results. That press release disclosed
that the Company "plans to submit the [AXS-07] NDA to the FDA in
the first quarter of 2021, versus previous guidance of the fourth
quarter of 2020, to allow for inclusion of supplemental
manufacturing information to ensure a robust submission package."
On this news, Axsome's stock price fell $5.22 per share, or 6.99%,
to close at $69.51 per share on November 5, 2020.
Then, on April 25, 2022, Axsome disclosed in a filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that, "[o]n April 22, 2022,
Axsome . . . was informed by the [FDA] that [CMC] issues identified
during the FDA's review of the Company's [NDA] for its AXS-07
product candidate for the acute treatment of migraine are
unresolved." That filing also disclosed that "[b]ased upon the time
remaining in the NDA review cycle, the Company expects to receive a
Complete Response Letter [('CRL')] with respect to this NDA on or
about the Prescription Drug User Fee Act target action date of
April 30, 2022."
On this news, Axsome's stock price fell $8.60 per share, or 21.99%,
to close at $30.50 per share on April 25, 2022.
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 or via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com [GN]
BAKKT HOLDINGS: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of June 20 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Attention Bakkt Holdings, Inc. f/k/a VPC Impact Acquisition
Holdings ("Bakkt Holdings, Inc. f/k/a VPC Impact Acquisition
Holdings") (NYSE: BKKT) shareholders:
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on May 16 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit
is on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired: (a) Bakkt securities between March 31, 2021 and November
19, 2021, both dates inclusive; and/or (b) Bakkt Class A common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to documents issued in connection
with the business combination between the Company and Bakkt
Holdings, LLC completed on or about October 15, 2021.
If you suffered a loss on your investment in Bakkt Holdings, Inc.
f/k/a VPC Impact Acquisition Holdings, contact us about potential
recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/bakkt-holdings-inc-f-k-a-vpc-impact-acquisition-holdings-loss-submission-form?prid=27222&wire=4
ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Bakkt Holdings, Inc.
f/k/a VPC Impact Acquisition Holdings includes allegations that the
Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had defective financial
controls; (ii) as a result, there were errors in the Company's
financial statements related to the misclassification of certain
shares issued prior to the business combination between the Company
and Bakkt Holdings, LLC; (iii) accordingly, the Company would need
to restate certain of its financial statements; (iv) the Company
downplayed the true scope and severity of these issues; (v) the
Company overstated its remediation of its defective financial
controls; and (vi) as a result, the documents issued in connection
with the business combination and defendants' public statements
throughout the class period were materially false and/or misleading
and failed to state information required to be stated therein.
DEADLINE: June 20, 2022
Aggrieved Bakkt Holdings, Inc. f/k/a VPC Impact Acquisition
Holdings investors only have until June 20, 2022 to request that
the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required to
act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Collectible Card Games
--------------------------------------------------------------
eurogamer.net reports that a father is attempting to launch a
class-action lawsuit against Hearthstone maker Blizzard, after his
daughter secretly spent more than $300 on packs without getting all
the cards they wanted.
Arizona man Nathan Harris is trying to launch the suit, which
claims Hearthstone tricks players into non-refundable purchases
without knowing the odds of rare cards (thanks, Polygon).
In particular, Harris complains that his daughter - who used his
credit card without asking - did not realise you could not get a
refund from packs which "almost never received any valuable cards".
The game also lacks parental controls, Harris complained.
The one where Wes beat Hearthstone pro Trump.
Harris is seeking to use the California Family Code - which gives
minors rights to get out of contracts and gain refunds - as part of
a class-action suit, so the complaint could potentially be opened
up to other, similar parents without full control of their credit
cards.
Like many other collectible card games (or games in other genres
with lootboxes), Hearthstone's packs offer random chances at cards
from a particular set, with a selection of rarity tiers.
In Hearthstone, any card - such as one you don't need or have
already - can be ground down into Dust, which can be crafted into a
specific card you're after. The game also has so-called pity
timers, which ensure you do get at least one top-tier Legendary
card after more than 40 packs.
Back in March, another Californian class-action lawsuit was
proposed by two mothers against Nintendo over its Switch Joy-Con
drift. In that case, the mothers wanted to circumvent the Switch's
user agreement (which says you can't sue Nintendo) by saying their
children would sue on their behalf. [GN]
BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Card Pack System
------------------------------------------------------------------
Noam Radcliffe at dbltap.com reports that a parent has filed a
proposed class-action lawsuit against Blizzard Entertainment on
behalf of his daughter, claiming that Hearthstone's card pack
system tricks players, especially minors, into making
non-refundable purchases, Polygon reports.
Arizona resident Nathan Harris and his lawyers filed the proposed
suit with the California State Superior Court in Orange County.
Their filing says Harris' daughter spent more than $300 on
Hearthstone from 2019 to 2021 without her father's permission. The
suit argues she didn't know the odds of opening valuable cards -
and in fact "almost never" did, per the suit - and was unaware she
could not get a refund.
Harris and his lawyers have asked the court to open their suit up
to any other minors or parents of minors who have ever purchased a
Hearthstone card pack to join their side. They estimate that could
include "hundreds, if not thousands" of people.
According to Harris' lawyer, minors have the right to "disaffirm
contracts" under California Family Code, and that this extends to
getting a refund on a purchase such as a Hearthstone pack. The suit
also attacks Blizzard for not disclosing odds for these packs,
failing to implement sufficient parental control features, and not
offering a way for parents and minors to get refunds.
Blizzard has responded to the filing by asking the court to move
the case to the United States District Court in the Central
District of California, which it says is the appropriate
jurisdiction. The company said damages in a proposed class action
suit would exceed the $5 million threshold needed to move the case
to the Central District.
Blizzard has come under fire in the past for randomized player
rewards bought with real money. The company successfully moved that
case to arbitration in March, arguing the minor in the case had
agreed to this when signing the game's user agreements.
Blizzard is hardly alone in taking heat for loot boxes and similar
monetization strategies. Legislators around the world have begun to
question whether loot boxes count as gambling, and whether players
need to be protected from them. Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri
introduced a bill in 2019 to regulate loot boxes, but little
progress has been made on enacting it.
Meanwhile, a Dutch court ruled in March that FIFA's card packs
don't break the country's gambling laws, dealing publishers a win.
[GN]
BOSTON MARKET: Fitzpatrick, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS FITZPATRICK and
ARTHUR J. CAPUTO, individually and behalf off all others
similarly situated, v. BOSTON MARKET CORP., Case No. 21-cv-9618-PAE
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the action as a Rule 23 class action pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23, on behalf of:
"all employees who worked as Crew Members (including
Servers, Cashiers, Cook Assistants/Backups and
Dishwashers/Utilities), Sandwich-Makers/Carvers and
Catering Delivery Drivers who worked at any and all of
Defendant Boston Market Corp.'s restaurants located in New
York State at any time on or after November 22, 2015";
2. Appointing Arthur J. Caputo and Rachel Cuevas as the Class
representatives;
3. Appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as Class counsel under Fed.
R. Civ. P. Rule 23(g);
4. Authorizing Court facilitated notice of this NYLL class
action to Class Members;
5. Ordering Defendant to produce a list of the names, last
known address, alternate address(es) (if any), all known
telephone numbers, all known e-mail addresses, social
security numbers, dates of birth, dates of employment and
job titles, of all Class Members; and
6. For such other and further relief as may be just and
proper.
Boston Market known as Boston Chicken until 1995, is an American
fast casual restaurant chain headquartered in Golden, Colorado. It
is owned by the Rohan Group.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 2, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PsDxcP at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
Josef Nussbaum, Esq.
Michel DiGiulio, Esq.
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 688-5640
Facsimile: (212) 688-2548
CALIFORNIA: FTB Settles Tax Fee Class Action for $22 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that the California Franchise Tax Board
(FTB) has agreed to pay $22 million to resolve claims it charged
LLCs unconstitutional tax fees.
The FTB settlement benefits LLCs that paid an LLC tax fee based on
their worldwide total income previously required under Cal. Rev. &
Tax. Code Section 17942. Eligible LLCs must have submitted a refund
request that was either denied or denied with the opportunity to
file a lawsuit under California tax code by
Feb. 4, 2010.
The California Franchise Tax Board is responsible for California
taxes by both individuals and businesses. Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code
Section 17942 determines the taxes limited liability corporations
(LLCs) have to pay.
Although the tax code was amended in 2008, previous versions of the
statute required LLCs to pay taxes based on their worldwide income.
Taxpayers took action against the California FTB, arguing these
taxes were unconstitutional. According to the lawsuits against the
tax authority, LLCs in the state should only need to pay taxes
based on income derived in California.
In two lawsuits, the tax statute was found to be unconstitutional,
though the court hasn't decided if the plaintiffs in the
consolidated FTB LLC fees lawsuit were correct. Instead of
litigating this issue through a trial, the California FTB agreed to
pay $22 million to resolve the allegations.
Under the terms of the settlement, class members can collect
payments for the LLC fees they previously paid to the California
FTB.
Payment amounts will vary based on the amount each LLC paid in tax
fees, how much of those payments were for non-California income and
other factors. Depending on the number of claims filed with the
settlement, some class members could receive full refunds of their
allegedly unconstitutional tax payments.
However, since the FTB has held onto the paid tax fees for over 15
years, LLCs may not have records proving where they generated
income that was later taxed. Although class members with
documentation may be eligible for higher payments, proof of income
isn't required to receive a refund.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 5, 2022.
The final approval hearing for the FTB LLC fees settlement is
scheduled for Aug. 2, 2022.
In order to receive benefits from the settlement, class members
must submit a valid claim form by July 5, 2022.
Who's Eligible
The FTB settlement benefits LLCs that paid an LLC tax fee based on
their worldwide total income previously required under Cal. Rev. &
Tax. Code Section 17942. Eligible LLCs must have submitted a refund
request that was either denied or denied with the opportunity to
file a lawsuit under California tax code by Feb. 4, 2010.
Potential Award
Varies
Proof of Purchase
Class members with documentation may be eligible for higher
payments, proof of income isn't required to receive a refund.
Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
07/05/2022
Case Name
Franchise Tax Board Limited Liability Corporation Tax Refund Cases,
Case No. CJC-12-004742, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, City and County of San Francisco
Final Hearing
08/02/2022
Settlement Website
FTBLLCTaxSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
FTB LLC Tax Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
info@FTBLLCTaxSettlement.com
888-874-5887
Class Counsel
Amy Silverstein
SILVERSTEIN & POMERANTZ LLP
Kathleen V Fisher
Rodney J Jacob
Alex M Freeman
CALVO FISHER & JACOB LLP
Defense Counsel
Laura E Robbins
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [GN]
CAPITAL ONE: Case Management, Scheduling Order Entered in Bacs
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN BACS and JESSICA
ROUBERT, v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Case No.
8:21-cv-02852-TPB-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Tom Barber
entered a case management and scheduling order as follows:
-- Plaintiff Expert Disclosure August 31, 2022
-- Defendant Expert Disclosure September 30, 2022
-- Rebuttal Expert Disclosure October 31, 2022
-- Discovery Cut-Off November 7, 2022
-- Class Certification Motion June 1, 2022
-- Summary Judgment, Daubert, November 30, 2022
and other Dispositive Motions
-- The parties shall participate November 17, 2022
in court-annexed mediation on
or before:
-- A pretrial conference will be April 17, 2023
held before Judge Tom Barber,
in Courtroom 14A, 801 North
Florida Avenue, Tampa,
Florida, on:
Capital One Financial Corporation is an American bank holding
company specializing in credit cards, auto loans, banking, and
savings accounts, headquartered in McLean, Virginia with operations
primarily in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com a https://bit.ly/3wp7oKy at no extra charge.[CC]
CAPITAL ONE: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $190MM
--------------------------------------------------------
The Cyber Wire reports that Capital One reaches settlement for 2019
data breach. American Bank Capital One has agreed to pay $190
million in a settlement linked to a 2019 data breach in which an
intruder (later captured by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation)
gained unauthorized third-party access to the bank's systems,
compromising the personal data of approximately 98 million
customers. Top Class Actions explains that the exposed data
included sensitive information like names, birth dates, addresses,
phone numbers, credit scores, and Social Security numbers. In the
class-action lawsuit, the impacted customers argued the bank
neglected to properly safeguard their data, putting them at risk
for fraud. Though Capital One has not admitted to any wrongdoing,
it agreed to the settlement, which grants class members access to a
cash payment of up to $25,000 for expenses and lost time, and
requires the bank to implement extensive cyber security practices
for at least two years. [GN]
CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: $1BB Tentative Class Action Settlement Reached
----------------------------------------------------------------
Curt Anderson, writing for Associated Press, reports that a nearly
$1 billion tentative settlement has been reached in a class-action
lawsuit brought by families of victims and survivors of last June's
condominium collapse in Surfside, Florida, an attorney said on May
11.
Harley S. Tropin announced the $997 million settlement during a
hearing before Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Michael Hanzman.
Still pending final approval, the settlement involves developers of
an adjacent building, insurance companies and other defendants.
"I think it's fantastic," Hanzman said, reacting to the update from
attorneys. "This is a recovery that is far in excess of what I had
anticipated."
Earlier this year, Hanzman had approved an $83 million settlement
to compensate people who suffered economic losses such as
condominium units and personal property. A key question from the
beginning has been how to allocate money from the property's sale,
insurance proceeds and damages from lawsuits among wrongful death
cases and property claims.
The 12-story Champlain Towers South condominium partially collapsed
in the early-morning hours of June 24, almost instantly destroying
dozens of individual condo units and burying victims under tons of
rubble. Rescuers spent weeks carefully digging through mountains of
concrete, first to find survivors and later to recover the remains
of those who died. Ten days after the initial collapse, demolition
crews used explosives to bring down the remaining portion of the
building to give searchers access to additional areas where
survivors might have been located. A total of 98 people were
killed.
The tragedy in the town of Surfside, just north of Miami Beach,
triggered lawsuits from victims, families and condo owners, and
prompted state and federal investigations. In October, a coalition
of engineers and architects said the state of Florida should
consider requiring high-rise buildings near the coast to undergo
safety inspections every 20 years. And in December, a Florida grand
jury issued a lengthy list of recommendations aimed at preventing
another condominium collapse, including earlier and more frequent
inspections and better waterproofing.
At the time of the collapse, Miami-Dade and Broward were the only
two of the state's 67 counties that had condominium recertification
programs.
The main lawsuit, filed on behalf of Champlain Towers South victims
and family members, contends that work on the adjacent Eighty Seven
Park tower damaged and destabilized the Champlain Towers building,
which was in need of major structural repair. Champlain Towers was
in the midst of its 40-year structural review when it partially
crumbled to the ground.
Video released by a team of federal investigators showed evidence
of extensive corrosion and overcrowded concrete reinforcement in
the building.
Seven months after the collapse, temporary structural supports were
added to areas in the underground garage of Champlain Towers
South's sister tower, Champlain Towers North, in what the
building's condo board called "an abundance of caution." The condo
was built in 1981 and has a nearly identical design as the
Champlain Towers South.
The little-known enclave of Surfside comprises a mix of older homes
and condos similar to the collapsed tower, built decades ago for
the middle-class, and recently erected luxury condos drawing the
wealthy. That includes former first daughter Ivanka Trump and her
husband, Jared Kushner, who live about a block north of the
collapsed condo. The residents of Champlain Towers South were an
international mix: South American immigrants, Orthodox Jews and
foreign retirees.[GN]
CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: Class Action Settled for Close to $1 Billion
--------------------------------------------------------------
On June 24, 2021, Champlain Towers South, a 136-unit oceanfront
condo complex in Florida, suddenly collapsed without warning with
many of the residents inside. This led to numerous injuries and
fatalities. The portion of the complex that was left standing after
the tragedy was then leveled in a controlled explosion that was
meant to allow crews to continue their efforts to find missing
residents.
Governor Ron DeSantis said at the time of the demo, "Concerns about
the remaining part of the building left few options but demolition.
Residents of the building who survived fled with whatever they had
with them and had not been permitted to enter the teetering
structure. . . . I know there's a lot of people who were able to
get out, fortunately, who have things there. We're very sensitive
to that. But I don't think that there's any way you could let
someone go back up into that building given the shape that it's in
now."
Miami-Dade Mayor Daniella Levine Cava added afterwards that the
demolition was "executed exactly as planned and left officials
optimistic about the safely sifting through the rubble. There is
hope that there are voids that will allow us to continue the search
and rescue operation."
In fall 2021, once all was said and done, survivors and their
families feared a legal a process called 'subrogation' in which
insurance companies can essentially stop future payments to
policyholders to reimburse themselves for losses. They voiced
concerns over wanting reassurance that they'd be able to collect.
Now, this month, they've gotten this reassurance as their class
action lawsuit comes to a close and they're set to receive a $1
billion settlement.
The terms of the deal were announced in Miami-Dade Circuit Court
before Judge Michael Hanzman. Each of the 98 people who filed
claims will receive their fair share of the funds, although the
exact amount has yet to be determined.
"We have gotten $997 million in proposed settlements before you -
and it could be a billion before the end of the week," said Harley
S. Tropin, an attorney for the plaintiffs. "We will be done. The
money will be distributed. These victims will get some measure of
relief."
Hanzman said he originally expected far less to be paid out even
though the attorneys had sought to collect $1 billion from the very
start. The judge had initially called this "a longshot." Most
recently, he said, "The result was achieved, and the speed is
beyond extraordinary. When this case first came in this court I
told everyone this wouldn't be business as usual. This was a
tragedy of unspeakable proportions. If we didn't have the right
people handling this case, it would be a ten-year slog with tens of
millions in attorneys' fees."
Plaintiffs settled with at least ten individuals and businesses,
including the insurance companies of the security company for
Champlain South, developers of the complex next door, engineers,
architects, a law firm, and the condo's association. The defendants
included 8701 Collins Development, Terra Group, Terra World
Investments, John Moriarty and Associates of Florida, NV5, DeSimone
Consulting Engineers, Stantec Architecture, Morabito Consultants,
the law firm Becker, and Champlain Towers South Condominium
Association. [GN]
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Continued to July 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LANCE BAIRD, FABIAN
HUERTA, AND KOYAANA REDSTAR, individually and on behalf of a class
of others similarly situated, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. dba
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS (CCI), INC., a Delaware Corporation; and
DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:19-cv-10621-FLA-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha entered an order granting in part
the Ex Parte Application to Compel Charter Communications to
Produce Pursuant to the Court's Ordered Protocols and to Continue
Plaintiffs' Deadline for Class Certification as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs' deadline to hear a Motion for Class
Certification is continued to July 29, 2022.
2. The court REOPENS fact discovery solely for the purpose of
allowing the Plaintiffs to bring their request for
subscriber information as a discovery motion before
Magistrate Judge Stevenson. The court expressly declines
to consider whether Plaintiffs have demonstrated
sufficient diligence or good cause for the requested
discovery or whether Plaintiffs' request is reasonable.
3. Plaintiffs shall comply with all of Magistrate Judge
Stevenson’s procedural requirements for the filing of
discovery motions, as stated on her webpage, which is
available at: http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/honorable-
karen-l-stevenson. Plaintiff shall send Magistrate Judge
Stevenson’s Courtroom Deputy an e-mail seeking a telephone
conference with her court on or before May 6, 2022.
4. In light of this continuance, the parties are ordered meet
and confer regarding a stipulation for the continuance of
the remaining pretrial and trial dates and deadlines.
Charter Communications is an American telecommunications and mass
media company with services branded as Spectrum.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FOcvbw at no extra charge.[CC]
CLUB 360: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Continued to September 13
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWIN BAZARGANFARD and
BARAK GOLAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. CLUB 360 LLC; ABC FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC; JEHANGIR
MEHER; and DOES 1-10, Club 360 LLC et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-02272-CBM-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Consuelo B.
Marshall entered an order granting stipulation extending hearing on
motion for class certification by 60 days.
1. The Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
is continued to September 13, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.;
2. The Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Class
Certification by July 26, 2022;
3. The Defendants shall file their Opposition by August 16,
2022; and
4. The Plaintiffs' shall file their Reply in Support by
August 23, 2022.
Club 360 offers personal training and fitness classes.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NgKkEF at no extra charge.[CC]
COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that
Coca-Cola Consolidated workers were not paid proper overtime or for
all their hours worked following a hack of Kronos timekeeping
systems, a new class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Taitum Marshall claims the Kronos hack last year led to
"problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout Coca-Cola
Consolidated's organization."
The hack caused workers who should not have been exempt from
overtime under federal and state laws to be paid improperly, the
class action lawsuit alleges.
The Kronos hack "interfered" with Coca-Cola's ability to use its
software to "track hours and pay employees," according to the class
action.
In the aftermath of the Kronos hack, meanwhile, Marshall claims
Coca-Cola failed to temporarily implement its own system to
"accurately record time and properly pay" non-exempt or salaried
employees.
"Instead, Coca-Cola Consolidated pushed the cost of the Kronos hack
onto the most economically vulnerable people in its workforce," the
lawsuit states.
Coca-Cola Class Action Alleges Failure To Implement Accurate System
Following Kronos Hack
Marshall claims Coca-Cola issued paychecks using either "estimated"
or "scheduled" hours or by simply duplicating paychecks from
periods prior to the Kronos hack.
"As a result of Coca-Cola Consolidated's failure to accurately
track the actual hours worked each week, employees who were
non-exempt and worked overtime were in many cases paid less than
the hours they worked in the workweek, including overtime hours,"
the Coca-Cola class action states.
While Coca-Cola has made good on some of the outstanding payments,
the company still has not paid portions of earned wages to its
workers, Marshall alleges.
Marshall claims Coca-Cola is in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, the Virginia
Overtime Wage Act and the Virginia Payment of Wage Law.
He wants to represent a nationwide class along with Virginia and
North Carolina subclasses of current or former Coca-Cola
Consolidated non-exempt employees who worked for the company since
the Kronos hack in December.
Plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting an award of
unpaid wages and liquidated damages for herself and all class
members.
A similar class action lawsuit was filed last month against PepsiCo
over claims the company failed to properly compensate its workers
in the aftermath of the Kronos hack. [GN]
COLLECTO INC: Extension of Time to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA DAVIS and CLARENCE
DAVIS, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, v. COLLECTO, INC. d/b/a EOS CCA, Case No.
3:21-cv-00044 (S.D.W.Va.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an
order extending the time for the Plaintiffs to move for class
certification.
On March 11, 2021, the Court entered the initial Scheduling Order,
which set deadlines of:
(i) November 12, 2021 for Plaintiffs to file their motion
for class certification;
(ii) discovery requests to be completed by January 21, 2022;
and
(iii) dispositive motions to be filed by August 8, 2022.
On October 28, 2021, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to
extend time for the Plaintiffs to File their Motion for Class
Certification to January 21, 2022.
On December 10, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel
discovery. While that motion was pending, which involved class
discovery which would be necessary to support a motion for class
certification, the parties agreed to a Joint Motion to Extend Time
for Plaintiffs to Move for Class Certification.
On December 23, 2021, the Court granted the parties' second Joint
Motion to Extend Time for Plaintiffs to File their Motion for Class
Certification to May 20, 2022.
Collecto operates as a debt management and recovery resource
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lmNCds at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin M. Sheridan, Esq.
KLEIN & SHERIDAN, LC
3566 Teays Valley Road
Hurricane, WV 25526
Telephone: (304) 562-7111
E-mail: ben@kleinsheridan.com
- and -
Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq.
Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
923 Haddonfield Rd., Suite 300
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Telephone: 856-324-8219
E-mail: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com
jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Lawrence J. Bartel, III, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY & MANSUKHANI
Three Logan Square, Suite 610
1717 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
- and -
Katlin C. Zarisky, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY & MANSUKHANI
707 Grant Street, Suite 3800
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 316-2917
Facsimile: (412) 347-5461
E-mail: kzarisky@grsm.com
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Deadlines Extended in Blair
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIK BLAIR, on behalf of
himself and similarly situated employees, v. COMPREHENSIVE
HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00254-WSS
(W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge William S. Stickman IV entered an order
granting the parties' joint motion to extend expert deadlines and
amend briefing schedule as follows:
-- Defendants will produce by May 6, 2022 the supplemental
written discovery agreed upon between counsel on April 28,
2022;
-- the deadline for expert discovery is May 27, 2022;
-- the deadline for Plaintiffs' amended motion for class
certification is June 6, 2022;
-- the deadline for Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs'
amended motion is June 27, 2022; and
-- the deadline for Plaintiffs' reply brief in response to
Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' amended motion is
July 11, 2022.
Comprehensive Healthcare is a private company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lCSI5L at no extra charge.[CC]
DANIEL LEBOLD: Hoelzer Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTHA HOELZER and all
similarly situated individuals, v. DANIEL LEBOLD, Case No.
1:20-cv-01072-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying this action as a class action under Rule 23(a)
and (b)(3);
2. appointing her as class representative;
3. appointing New South Law Firm as class counsel; and
4. directing the University of North Carolina to produce the
names, last known mailing addresses, last-known cell phone
numbers, email addresses, work locations, job titles at
the time of hire and termination, and dates of employment
of all putative plaintiffs within a reasonable time period
of any Order granting this Motion.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 2, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FSkPHn at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Valerie L. Bateman, Esq.
June K. Allison, Esq.
NEW SOUTH LAW FIRM
209 Lloyd St., Ste 350
Carrboro, NC 27510
Telephone: (919) 810-3139
Facsimile: (919) 823-6383
E-mail: valerie@newsouthlawfirm
June@newsouthlawfirm
DELTA AIR: Seeks Leave to File Documents Under Seal in Lomas Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANKIE LOMAS, ROXANDA
YANCOR, JOSE ALVARADO, and MARIA ALVARADO, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC. a
Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00786-JAK-SK (C.D. Cal.),
the Defendant submits the Application to File Under Seal Documents
in Support of Delta's Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.
Delta seeks to file under seal narrowly tailored portions of the
below-listed documents:
-- Declaration of Timothy P. Jung, Ph.D., P.E. in Support of
Delta's Opposition to Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification;
-- Exhibit 1 (Expert Report of Christina M. Brunk, CFA, CRE,
FRICS, dated 10 May 2, 2022) to the Declaration of
Christina M. Brunk in Support of 11 Delta's Opposition to
Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Brunk
Declaration);
-- Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Nathan I. Cobb
in support of Class Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification; and
-- [Proposed] Order re Evidentiary Objections to the
Declaration of Nathan I. Cobb in support of Class
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
Delta is one of the major airlines of the United States and a
legacy carrier. One of the world's oldest airlines in operation,
Delta is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 2, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yJXE0m at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
David K. Willingham, Esq.
Arwen R. Johnson, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 443-4355
Facsimile: (213) 443-4310
E-mail: dwillingham@kslaw.com
arwen.johnson@kslaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey J. Ellis, Esq.
Autumn E. Lewis, Esq.
CLYDE & CO US LLP
405 Lexington Avenue, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10174
Telephone: (212) 710-3900
Facsimile: (212) 710-3950
E-mail: jeff.ellis@clydeco.us
autumn.lewis@clydeco.us
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Katz's Bid for Conditional Certification OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONIQUE KATZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and YEKATERINA
SKIDANENKO, v. EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-09856-VEC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Caproni entered an order:
1. granting Ms. Katz's motion for conditional certification
of a collective of personal trainers who allegedly worked
without proper compensation filed on Oct. 28, 2021; and
2. denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss Ms. Katz's
claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)
(6), filed on January 21, 2022.
The Plaintiffs Monique Katz and Yekaterina Skidanenko bring this
action against Equinox for failure to pay wages pursuant to
federal, state, and city law, among other claims.
Equinox is a nationwide fitness company with gyms throughout the
State of New York. Equinox employs personal trainers at different
tiers: Tier 1 and Tier 2 trainers (Low-Tier Trainers), who
primarily perform floor shifts, including cleaning, demonstrating
workouts, and recruiting members for private training; and Tier 3,
Tier 3+, and Tier X trainers (High-Tier Trainers), who primarily
perform private personal training sessions.
Equinox hired Monique Katz as a Tier 1 personal trainer in August
2015; by August 2016 she had been promoted to Tier 3. Equinox hired
Yekaterina Skidanenko as a Tier 1 personal trainer in July 2019;
she stopped working due to an injury in October of that same year.
Ms. Katz and Ms. Skidanenko assert claims of unpaid minimum wages,
spread of hours, and unpaid overtime compensation in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York state and city
laws.
Ms. Katz also asserts that Defendant violated the Family and
Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. section 2615 et seq., by denying her
benefits under the act and then retaliating against her for
exercising her rights under the act.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ljD6Ud at no extra charge.[CC]
EVENTIDE CREDIT: Bids to Extend Class Certification Deadlines Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD LEE SMITH, JR.,
individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated, v. MATT
MARTORELLO, and EVENTIDE CREDIT ACQUISITIONS, LLC, Case No.
3:18-cv-01651-AR (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey Armistead entered
an order denying the defendants' motions to extend class
certification deadlines and to issue subpoenas.
The court finds that defendants have not shown "good cause" for
extending the class certification discovery deadline, and the
motion to extend the class certification deadlines is denied.
Because the court finds that defendants have not shown good cause
to extend the class-discovery deadline, and that deadline lapsed on
April 11, 2022, the defendants' motion to issue the requested
subpoenas is denied as moot.
Smith alleges that Martorello orchestrated a lending scheme that
charged Smith and other Oregonians usurious rates for short-term
loans obtained online. Smith obtained a $1,500 loan online from his
home in Banks, Oregon at an annual interest rate of 527 percent.
Smith repaid his loan in four months and it cost him $4,353.69 in
principal and interest.
Smith received his loan from Big Picture, a lender ostensibly
created and controlled by the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa Indians, a Native American tribe. Smith alleges
that Martorello created Big Picture to insulate himself from
liability and to rebrand his lending operation after an enforcement
action was undertaken by the State of New York against Martorello
and the Tribe's prior lending entities, Red Rock Tribal Lending and
Bellicose Capital. Smith alleges Martorello owned and controlled
Bellicose, and that Bellicose ran Red Rock's operations.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sI7DiH at no extra charge.[CC]
EVOLUTION WELL: Faces Class Action Over FSLA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Compensation.BLR.com reports that whether to pay any travel time
for employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) can be
complicated. Those who believe they should be compensated for the
time often challenge nonpayment. A dispute over travel time with
one individual can sometimes even blossom into a class action
lawsuit involving a large number of current and former employees.
An oilfield employer recently found itself battling exactly that
sort of expanding lawsuit.
Evolution Well Services Operating, LLC, provides a variety of
oilfield services to the fracturing industry. Some employees are
assigned to 14-day rotations while working at remote well sites.
Before beginning each rotation, they traveled from their homes to
housing provided by Evolution. After completing the 14-day
rotations, they left the employer-provided housing and returned
home.
During the rotations, Evolution frequently held morning meetings
with workers on-site at the employer-provided housing before they
left for the worksite. The meetings, which generally lasted 15 to
20 minutes, included discussions with supervisors, temperature
checks, and occasionally drug testing.
Each day, employees traveled between the employer-provided housing
to remote worksites. On average, the commute was a three-hour
roundtrip. Employees claimed they performed some work tasks during
their daily commute.
Class Action
Evolution employees and former employees are pursuing a class
action lawsuit against the company, claiming they should have been
paid for:
-- Travel time to and from their homes to the employer-provided
housing at the beginning and at the end of their 14-day rotations;
-- The 15 to 20 minutes spent attending each morning meeting;
and
-- Travel time (three-hour roundtrip) spent each day between the
employer-provided housing and a remote worksite.
Although it remains to be seen whether the employees will be
successful, at this point the court has conditionally approved them
to move forward with their class action lawsuit against Evolution.
Copley et al. v. Evolution Well Services Operating, LLC, Case No.
2:20-CV-1442-CCW (W.D. Pa., 2022).
FLSA Considerations
Under the FLSA, whether an employer is required to pay an employee
for travel time depends on specific facts, such as:
-- Whether travel is from home to work;
-- Whether travel is to different worksites during the day;
-- Whether travel is to a different city and returning the same
day;
-- Whether travel requires an overnight stay;
-- Whether travel is during regular work hours; and
-- Whether the employee performs work while traveling.
The Wage and Hour Division's (WHD) Fact Sheet #22 provides a
helpful summary of when travel time is compensable:
https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/whdfs22.pdf
Check Your Travel Compensation Practices
Under the FLSA, an employer's obligation to pay employees for some
types of travel time, but not others, can be confusing.
Increasingly, attorneys are targeting employers with potential
class action lawsuits aimed at challenging a company's practices.
Before that happens to you, audit your own travel pay practices.
Make sure you are consistent on when travel time is paid and that
your practices comply with the FLSA's requirements.
Charlie Plumb is an attorney in the Tulsa, Oklahoma, office of
McAfee & Taft where he represents management in all phases of
employment law and labor relations. Much of his practice is
dedicated to counseling employers on compliance with a broad range
of state and federal employment laws and regulations and educating
management on best practices for avoiding disputes arising from the
employer/employee relationship. He can be reached at
charlie.plumb@mcafeetaft.com. [GN]
EXCELLUS HEALTH: Class Settlement in Fero Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW FERO, et al., v.
EXCELLUS HEALTH PLAN, INC., et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-06569-EAW-JJM
(W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford entered an order
granting final approval of class action settlement and granting
plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, expenses, and service
awards.
1. Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement
The terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement,
including the Exhibits attached thereto, and Addendum, are
approved as fair, reasonable, adequate, and merit approval
in accordance with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and the Court's consideration of the
factors set forth in City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp.,
495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974), abrogated on other
grounds by Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d
43 (2d Cir. 2000).
2. Incorporation of Settlement Documents
The Court expressly incorporates in this Final Approval
Order and makes a part hereof the Settlement Agreement and
exhibits, and the Addendum.
3. Class Definition
The Court has certified an Injunctive Relief Class
consisting of:
"All individuals in the United States whose PII and/or PHI
was stored in Excellus's systems between December 23, 2013
and May 11, 2015 who (1) are included in Excellus's list
of Impacted Individuals and (2) whose PII and/or PHI
currently resides in Excellus's systems."
4. Representative Plaintiffs
Consistent with the Court's prior Order on class
certification in this case, and the Preliminary Approval
Order, the Court finds pursuant to Rule 23(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that Class
Representatives Plaintiffs Matthew Fero, Roger A. Carroll,
D.D.S., Andres Curbelo, Cindy Harden, Cathryn Kwit, Robert
Kwit, Nina Mottern, Barbara Palmer, Carole Preston, James
J. Smith, Jr., Sharon C. Smith, Dwayne Church, Don Korn,
Therese Boomershine, Carlos Martinho, Harold Jackling, and
Brenda Caltagarone ("Representative Plaintiffs") have
fairly and adequately represented the interests of the
Injunctive Relief Class in enforcing their rights in the
Action.
5. Class Counsel.
The Court previously appointed Hadley Lundback Matarazzo
(now Hadley E. Lundback) of Faraci Lange, LLP, and James
J. Bilsborrow of Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. as Class Counsel
and the Court confirms this appointment, finding that
Class Counsel have adequately represented the class in all
respects. Mr. Bilsborrow is now affiliated with the law
firm Seeger Weiss LLP. Class Counsel are authorized to act
on behalf of the Class Representatives and the Injunctive
Relief Class, and to bind them all to the duties and
obligations contained therein, which may be given pursuant
to, or which are reasonably necessary to perform the
Settlement Agreement.
6. Class Notice
The Court finds that the Notice and Notice Program
satisfied the applicable requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(c)(2)(B) and 23(e), and fully comply with all laws and
the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution,
constituting the best notice that was practicable under
the circumstances of this case, particularly given that
notice is not required for a Rule 23(b)(2) class.
7. Objections
No objections to the Settlement, the Settlement Benefits,
Service Awards, and/or the Attorneys' Fee Award and Costs
have been received by the Court, by any Injunctive Relief
Settlement Class Member, nor any cause shown as to why the
Settlement should not be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the Class, why a final judgment should not be
entered thereon, why the Settlement Benefits should not be
approved, or why the Service Awards and/or the Attorneys'
Fee Award and Costs should not be granted.
8. Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Costs, and Plaintiffs' Service
Awards
In accordance with Section VI of the Settlement Agreement,
and requested in Plaintiffs' Application for Attorneys'
Fees, Litigation Costs, and Service Awards, the Court
orders that within 15 days following the Effective Date of
the Settlement Agreement, Defendants pay Class Counsel
$4,350,000.00, representing the sum total of the Court-
approved Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Costs, and
Plaintiffs' Service Awards, as follows:
a. Class Counsel is hereby awarded attorneys' fees in the
amount of $3,554,500.00.
b. Class Counsel is awarded $700,000.00 in Litigation
Costs and Expenses.
c. Representative Plaintiffs are awarded $95,500.00 in
Service Awards.
9. Release
The Court finds that the Release set forth in ¶ 5.2 of the
Settlement Agreement, as modified through the parties'
Addendum to the Agreement, dated March 29, 2022, is valid
and enforceable.
Excellus BlueCross BlueShield a non-profit health insurance company
headquartered in Rochester, New York. It is part of the Blue Cross
Blue Shield Association.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3syq3T2 at no extra charge.[CC]
FACEBOOK INC: B.C. Supreme Court Certifies Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been certified by the B.C. Supreme Court in
Moretti et al. v. Facebook, Inc. S.C.B.C. No. VLC S-1813727 against
Sony Group Corporation and Huawei Technologies Co Ltd for
settlement purposes only on January 19, 2022.
This class action has been certified against Sony Group Corporation
and Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. only on behalf of all Facebook
users in Canada between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2018. The
lawsuit is continuing against Facebook and the other remaining
Defendants.
What is the class action about?
The lawsuit alleges that Facebook secretly gave major device
manufacturers access to users' personal information, without users'
knowledge or consent and in breach of their privacy. The Court has
appointed Concetta Moretti, Christopher Chow, Elizabeth Chartrand
and Jill Dockrill as representative plaintiffs.
Through this settlement, neither Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., nor
Sony Group Corporation, nor any of their affiliates are admitting
liability. Facebook and the other Defendants deny the allegations,
which have not been proven, and are defending the lawsuit.
Where can I find more information?
Settlement documents, opt-out forms, and court documents are
available on
https://www.callkleinlawyers.com/class-actions/facebook-device-manufacturers-class-action/.
For more information, please contact class counsel: Mathew P. Good
Law Corporation and Klein Lawyers LLP
dtanjuatco@callkleinlawyers.com and 604-874-7171. [GN]
FEDEX GROUND: Application for Leave to File Sur-Reply Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kawaski Corley v. FedEx
Ground Package System, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-00429-ODW-SHK
(C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order denying Ex Parte
Application for Leave to File Sur-Reply and directing Supplemental
Briefing on Retroactivity of ABC Test Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification is fully briefed and under submission.
The Court received and reviewed FedEx's Application for Leave to
File a Sur-Reply in opposition to the Motion. The Court finds no
need for the proposed sur-reply.
In reviewing the Motion for Class Certification, the Court finds
that additional briefing on a particular topic is necessary.
Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. provides package delivery
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3whYlfq at no extra charge.[CC]
FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 11 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a leading national shareholder
rights law firm, on May 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired First High-School Education Group Co., Ltd. ("FHS" or the
"Company") (NYSE: FHS) American Depository Shares ("ADSs") pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's March 2021 initial public
offering (the "IPO"). FHS investors have until July 11, 2022 to
file a lead plaintiff motion.
If you suffered a loss on your FHS 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/first-high-school-education-group-co-ltd/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
In March 2021, FHS conducted its IPO, selling 7.5 million ADSs at
$10 per ADS.
On May 12, 2021, media reported that the impending crackdown by the
Chinese government on the online education industry would be more
drastic than previously reported. Anticipated regulations included
banning on-campus tutoring classes and weekend tutoring, as well as
industry-wide fee limitations.
Then, on July 23, 2021, China unveiled a sweeping overhaul of its
education sector, banning for-profit teaching and tutoring
companies.
On July 26, 2021, FHS issued a press release stating that it would
"follow the spirit of the Opinion and comply with all relevant
rules and regulations in providing high school education
services."
Then, on September 28, 2021, FHS announced its financial results
for the first half of 2021, revealing a 7.7% decrease in
year-over-year revenue.
Then, on April 5, 2022, FHS issued a press release announcing that
the Company had received a letter from the NYSE stating that the
Company was in non-compliance with the NYSE's listing requirements
because its total market capitalization and stockholders' equity
had fallen below compliance standards.
Then, on May 3, 2022, FHS disclosed that it would not be able to
timely file its annual report on Form NT 20-F.
By May 10, 2022, FHS ADSs closed below $1 per ADS, over 90% below
the IPO price, thereby injuring investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the new rules,
regulations, and policies to be implemented by the Chinese
government following the Two Sessions parliamentary meetings were
far more severe than represented to investors and posed a material
adverse threat to First High-School Education and its business; (2)
that contemplated Chinese regulations and rules regarding private
education were leading to a slowdown of government approval to open
new educational facilities which would have a negative effect on
First High-School Education's enrollment and growth; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired FHS ADSs pursuant and/or
traceable to the IPO, you may move the Court no later than July 11,
2022 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]
FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 11 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 16
disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit seeking to represent
purchasers of First High-School Education Group Co., Ltd. (NYSE:
FHS) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") in or traceable to First
High-School Education's March 2021 initial public offering (the
"IPO"). Commenced on May 11, 2022 in the Sothern District of New
York, the First High-School Education class action lawsuit --
captioned Dagan Investments LLC v. First High-School Education
Group Co., Ltd., No. 22-cv-03831 -- charges First High-School
Education, certain of its top executives and directors, as well as
the IPO's underwriters and others with violations of the Securities
Act of 1933.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the First High-School Education class action lawsuit,
please provide your information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-first-high-school-education-group-co-ltd-class-action-fhs,join.html
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead
plaintiff motions for the First High-School Education class action
lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than July 11, 2022.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: First High-School Education provides tutoring
services and operates private high schools in Western China. In the
week immediately prior to the IPO -- from March 4, 2021 through
March 11, 2021 -- China held its annual "Two Sessions"
parliamentary meetings, where the two main political bodies of
China meet, discuss, and reveal plans for China's policies
involving the economy, military, trade, diplomacy, education, the
environment, and other issues. Unbeknownst to investors until after
the IPO, Chinese government leaders in attendance at the Two
Sessions meetings had proposed – and ultimately adopted –
stringent regulations governing the educational industry with
material adverse repercussions for First High-School Education's
business, operations, and financial prospects.
Specifically, the First High-School Education class action lawsuit
alleges that the IPO's Registration Statement made inaccurate
statements of material fact because defendants failed to disclose
the following adverse facts that existed at the time of the IPO:
(i) that the new rules, regulations, and policies to be implemented
by the Chinese government following the Two Sessions parliamentary
meetings were far more severe than represented to investors and
posed a material adverse threat to First High-School Education and
its business; (ii) that contemplated Chinese regulations and rules
regarding private education were leading to a slowdown of
government approval to open new educational facilities which would
have a negative effect on First High-School Education's enrollment
and growth; and (iii) that, as a result, the Registration
Statement's representations regarding First High-School Education's
historical financial and operational metrics and purported market
opportunities did not accurately reflect the actual business,
operations, and financial results and trajectory of First
High-School Education at the time of the IPO, and were materially
false and misleading and lacked a factual basis.
Soon after the IPO, media reports stated that attendees of the Two
Sessions conference had proposed stricter regulations to rein in
the for-profit education industry, such as regulations aimed at
enhancing teacher quality, limiting fee scams, reducing market
abuse, and reducing the stress that for-profit educational
companies had placed on students in the Chinese educational
system.
On May 12, 2021, news reports revealed that the impending
government crackdown on for-profit educational companies in China
would be much more drastic and far reaching than previously
publicly known. Sources stated that anticipated rules would include
measures such as banning on-campus tutoring classes, prohibiting
tutoring services during weekend hours, and the imposition of
industry-wide fee limitations.
Then, on May 14, 2021, China's state council announced rules that
it would further tighten regulations on compulsory education and
training institutions. According to an article on fitchratings.com
titled "Legal Changes in Private Education in China: Rising Risks
for K-12 Education Companies; Higher-Education Providers Benefit,"
the new rules "aim to prohibit profit-making in compulsory
education," and "expose K-12 school operators to heightened
regulatory risks and their revenue growth may slow . . . until they
obtain more clarity on how the changes will be implemented."
Thereafter, on July 23, 2021, China unveiled a sweeping overhaul of
its education sector, banning companies that teach the school
curriculum from making profits, raising capital, or going public.
These drastic measures effectively ended any potential growth in
the for-profit tutoring sector in China.
Two months later, on September 28, 2021, First High-School
Education revealed that its first half of 2021 revenue was RMB231.9
million, a year-over-year increase of only 24.8%, a steep drop from
the 30.5% year-over-year revenue increase for the first nine months
of 2020, and the 32.5% year-over-year revenue increase for the full
year 2020. The following month, on October 13, 2021, First
High-School Education issued a release announcing that its CFO,
defendant Lidong Zhu, had resigned as CFO. And on December 16,
2021, First High-School Education announced that it had dismissed
its auditor KPMG Huazhen LLP.
On April 5, 2022, First High-School Education announced that it had
received a letter from the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") stating
that it was in non-compliance with the NYSE's listing requirements
because its total market capitalization and stockholders' equity
had fallen below compliance standards. The following week, on April
13, 2022, First High-School Education announced that its total
revenues for 2021 were just RMB400.2 million, representing a
substantial deceleration in the second half of the year. The
release also stated that First High-School Education's total
student enrollment had remained almost unchanged at 21,247 students
at year's end, representing a paltry 3% increase year-over-year,
and that First High-School Education's gross profit had declined
18.1% during the year.
Finally, on May 3, 2022, First High-School Education filed a notice
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it would not
be able to timely file its annual report on Form NT 20-F.
By May 10, 2022, First High-School Education ADSs closed below $1
per ADS -- more than 90% below the price at which First High-School
Education ADSs were sold to the investing public a little more than
one year previously. At the time of the filing of this complaint,
the price of First High-School Education ADSs has remained
significantly below the IPO price.
You can view a copy of the complaint by visiting the following
link:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-first-high-school-education-group-co-ltd-class-action-fhs.html
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased First
High-School Education ADSs in or traceable to the IPO to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in the First High-School Education
class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with
the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the
putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative
class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members
in directing the First High-School Education class action lawsuit.
The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate
the First High-School Education class action lawsuit. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery of the First
High-School Education class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron
Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top
50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering nearly $1.9
billion for investors last year, more than triple the amount
recovered by any other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
the following page for more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL: Robbins LLP Reminds of July 11 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Class: Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds first
investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all
persons and entities that purchased First High-School Education
Group Co., Ltd. (NYSE: FHS) American Depository Shares in the
Company's March 2021 initial public offering ("IPO"). The complaint
alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933. FHS operates
private high schools in Western China and provides for-profit
tutoring services.
If you would like more information about First High-School
Education Group Co., Ltd's misconduct, click here.
What is this Case About: First High-School Education Group Co.,
Ltd. (FHS) Misled Investors in Connection with the Company's IPO
According to the complaint, the Registration Statement in support
of the Company's IPO highlighted the Company's "steady growth" and
stated that FHS is "well-positioned to seize the enormous and
sustainable demand for high-quality high schools in China." The
Registration Statement also stated that the private secondary
education industry in China experienced a "CAGR of 18.4%" from 2014
to 2019 and was on track to achieve a "CAGR of 24.9%" from 2019 to
2024, and represented that this sustained growth was due to a
variety of positive factors impacting FHS's business.
However, defendants failed to disclose certain adverse facts that
existed at the time of the IPO. Specifically, that the new rules,
regulations, and policies to be implemented by the Chinese
government following the Two Sessions parliamentary meetings - held
prior to the IPO - were far more severe than represented to
investors and posed a material adverse threat to the Company and
its business. Further, contemplated Chinese regulations and rules
regarding private education were leading to a slowdown of
government approval to open new educational facilities, which would
have a negative effect on FHS's enrollment and growth. In complying
with the new policies, FHS took a financial hit.
On April 5, 2022, FHS issued a press release announcing it had
received a letter from the NYSE stating that the Company was in
non-compliance with the NYSE's listing requirements because its
total market capitalization and stockholders' equity had fallen
below compliance standards. On May 3, 2022, FHS filed a notice with
the SEC that it would not be able to timely file its annual report
on Form NT 20-F. On May 10, 2022, FHS ADSs closed below $1 per ADS
- more than 90% below the price at which they were sold just more
than one year previously.
Next Steps: If you acquired shares of First High-School Education
Group Co., Ltd. pursuant to the Company's March 2021 IPO, you have
until July 11, 2022, to ask the court to appoint you lead plaintiff
for the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do
not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.[GN]
GAMESTOP CORP: Worker Sues Over Alleged Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Carpenter reports that a former GameStop worker is suing the
video game retail company for allegedly violating New York Labor
Law. The proposed class action suit was filed in New York's eastern
district court by Trevon Mack, a GameStop retail worker employed
from 2016 to 2020.
Mack and his lawyer said in the lawsuit that GameStop workers
qualify as "manual laborers," meaning that 25% of their job
requires them to do manual labor, like organizing stockrooms,
moving packages, and standing for a long shift. GameStop allegedly
pays their workers every other week, but New York Labor Law Section
191 requires companies to pay workers classified as manual laborers
every week. In not doing so, the suit alleged that GameStop is
violating labor law in the state.
The state defines a manual worker as "a mechanic, workingman, or
laborer," which has been interpreted as a worker doing "physical
labor" for more than 25% of their working day. New York's
Department of Labor includes "countless physical tasks performed by
employees" as physical labor, according to an FAQ page on the
government website. The broad nature of that definition seems to be
what causes confusion among workplaces. Companies are able to skirt
these rules if they're large enough, but have to apply for that
exemption.
The proposed class action suit could include "hundreds, if not
thousands" of employees and former GameStop workers. Mack and his
lawyer want the court to define GameStop workers as manual laborers
- and then GameStop will have to pay.
Neither GameStop nor Mack's lawyers have responded to Polygon's
request for comment.
These sorts of lawsuits are common in New York. This year alone,
Cheesecake Factory, Wal-Mart, Party City, Apple, Urban Outfitters,
and plenty others have been served over the same violations. Most
of these cases are ongoing, though some have been dismissed.
Outside of court, GameStop itself has had a turbulent past few
years - the company faced an existential crisis around 2020 as it
started closing hundreds of stores amid a push toward digital-only
sales. After a board refresh in 2021, the company saw an expected
and chaotic boost by meme stock trading - also known as GameStonk -
that dramatically increased GameStop's stock price. Despite
struggling in earnings, GameStop's stocks continue to bounce
around, reaching record highs as recent as last month, Kotaku
reported.
In the past few years, GameStop workers have faced dire working
conditions and extreme pressure from "desperate bosses." GameStop
workers alleged that the company failed to adequately protect its
workers during the COVID-19 pandemic - including staying open when
the store should have been closed with other non-essential
businesses.
GameStop also reportedly owes $30 million to Boston-based
consulting firm Boston Consulting Group, which filed a lawsuit
against the retail company in March.[GN]
GEICO INDEMNITY: Must Face Georgia Policyholders' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes,writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that GEICO Indemnity
Co. must face certified class claims by Georgia policyholders
alleging it didn't pay the full replacement costs on total-loss car
insurance claims, the Middle District of Georgia ruled.
Whether the company breached its contractual obligations to its
customers by failing to pay sufficient title ad valorem tax -- the
tax paid when a customer buys a car -- is common to all members and
capable of classwide resolution, Judge Marc T. Treadwell wrote for
the US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
The plaintiffs estimate the class will number in the tens of
thousands. [GN]
GEICO: Pimentel Bid to Compel Discovery Responses Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PIMENTEL v.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Case No. (), the Hon.
Judge David C. Keesler entered an order that "Plaintiff's motion to
compel discovery responses" is denied without prejudice.
The Court further ordered that the "Plaintiff's motion To modify
scheduling order" is denied without prejudice.
The Court said, "The Plaintiff has not sought conditional class
certification. Under these circumstances, the undersigned will
decline to extend the case deadlines or expand the scope of
discovery in this action in a manner that is inconsistent with
Judge Conrad's clear expectations for this case. Rather, the
undersigned finds that these motions should be denied, without
prejudice to Plaintiff filing revised motions, if necessary, that
seek discovery and/or additional time consistent with the "Pretrial
Order," and/or without prejudice to renewed motions if the Court
later allows a request to expand the scope of this case.
The Government Employees Insurance Company is a private American
auto insurance company with headquarters in Chevy Chase, Maryland.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yF35NO at no extra charge.[CC]
GOLUB CORP: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to July 6
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Austin v. The Golub
Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-00778 (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Christian F. Hummel entered an order that:
-- Deadline for completion of June 6, 2022
Mandatory Mediation is:
-- Deadline to file a Class July 6, 2022
Certification Motion is
extended to:
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Golub Corporation is an American supermarket operator.
Headquartered in Schenectady, New York, it owns the chains Market
32 and Price Chopper Supermarkets. The company opened its first
supermarkets in New York's Capital District in 1932, and changed
its name from Central Market to Price Chopper in 1973.[CC]
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Suit Over DeepMind NHS Patient Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Lomas, writing for TechCrunch+, reports that Google is
facing a new class-action style lawsuit in the U.K. in relation to
a health data scandal that broke back in 2016, when it emerged that
its AI division, DeepMind, had been passed data on more than a
million patients as part of an app development project by the Royal
Free NHS Trust in London -- without the patients' knowledge or
consent.
The Trust was later sanctioned by the U.K.'s data protection
watchdog which found, in mid 2017, that it had breached U.K. data
protection law when it signed the 2015 data-sharing deal with
DeepMind. However the tech firm -- which had been engaged by the
Trust to help develop an app wrapper for an NHS algorithm to alert
clinicians to the early signs of acute kidney injury (aka the
Streams app) -- avoided sanction since the Trust had been directly
responsible for sending it the patients' data.
So it's interesting that this private litigation is targeting
Google and DeepMind Technologies, several years later. (Albeit, if
a claim seeking damages against one of the world's most valuable
companies prevails there is likely to be considerably more upside
vs litigation aimed at a publicly funded healthcare Trust.)
Mishcon de Reya, the law firm that's been engaged to represent the
sole named claimant, a man called Andrew Prismall -- who says he's
bringing the suit on behalf of approximately 1.6 million
individuals whose records were passed to DeepMind -- said the
litigation will seek damages for unlawful use of patients'
confidential medical records. The claim is being brought in the
High Court of Justice of England & Wales.
The law firm also confirmed that the Royal Free is not being sued.
"The claim is for Misuse of Private Information by Google and
DeepMind. This is under common law," a spokeswoman for Mishcon de
Reya told us. "We can also confirm this is a damages claim."
A similar claim, announced last September, was discontinued,
according to the spokeswoman -- who confirmed: "This is a new claim
for the misuse of private information."
In a statement on why he's suing Google/DeepMind, Prismall said: "I
hope that this case can achieve a fair outcome and closure for the
many patients whose confidential records were -- without the
patients' knowledge -- obtained and used by these large tech
companies."
"This claim is particularly important as it should provide some
much-needed clarity as to the proper parameters in which technology
companies can be allowed to access and make use of private health
information," added Ben Lasserson, partner at Mishcon de Reya, in
another supporting statement.
The firm notes that the litigation is being funded by a litigation
finance agreement with Litigation Capital Management Ltd, a Sydney,
Australia headquartered entity which it describes as an alternative
asset manager specialising in dispute financing solutions
internationally.
Google was contacted for comment on the new suit but at the time of
writing the adtech giant had not responded.
There has been an uptake in class-action style litigations
targeting tech giants over misuse of data in Europe, although a
number have focused on trying to bring claims under data protection
law.
One such case, a long-running consumer class action-style suit in
the U.K. against Google related to a historic overriding of Safari
users' privacy settings, failed in the U.K. Supreme Court last
year. However Prismall is (now) suing for damages under the common
law tort of misuse of private information so the failure of that
earlier U.K. case does not necessarily have strong relevance here.
It does appear to explain why the earlier suit was discontinued and
a fresh one filed, though. "It's correct that the previous claim
was brought on the basis of a breach to the Data Protection Act and
the new claim is being brought on a for misuse of private
information," Mishcon de Reya's spokeswoman told us when we asked
about this.
While the DeepMind NHS patient data scandal may seem like (very)
old news, there was plenty of criticism of the regulatory response
at the time -- as the Trust itself did not face anything more than
reputational damage.
It was not, for example, ordered to tell DeepMind to delete patient
data -- and DeepMind was able to carry on inking deals with other
NHS Trusts to roll out the app despite it having been developed
without a valid legal basis to use the patient data in the first
place.
And while DeepMind had defended itself against privacy concerns
attached to its adtech parent Google, claiming the latter would
have no access to the sensitive medical data after the scandal
broke, it subsequently handed off its health division to Google, in
2018, meaning the adtech giant directly took over the role of
supplying and supporting the app for NHS Trusts and processing
patients' data… (Which may be why both Google and DeepMind
Technologies are named in the suit.)
There was also the issue of the memorandum of understanding inked
between DeepMind and the Royal Free which set out a five-year plan
to build AI models using NHS patient data. Though DeepMind always
claimed no patient data had been processed for AI.
In a further twist to the saga last summer, Google announced it
would be shuttering the Streams app -- which, at the time, was
still being used by the Royal Free NHS Trust. The Trust claimed it
would continue using the app despite Google announcing its
intention to decommission it -- raising questions over the security
of patient data once support (e.g. security patching) got withdrawn
by Google.
While the tech giant may have been hoping to put the whole saga
behind it by quietly shuttering Streams it will now either have to
defend itself in court, generating fresh publicity for the 2015 NHS
data misuse scandal -- or offer to settle in order to make the suit
go away quietly. (And the litigation funders are, presumably,
sniffing enough opportunity either way.)
The backlash against market-dominating tech giants continues to
fuel other types of class-action style lawsuits. Earlier this year,
for example, a major suit was launched against Facebook's parent,
Meta, seeking billions in damages for alleged abuse of U.K.
competition law. But the jury is out on which -- or whether --
representative actions targeting tech giants' data processing
habits will prevail. [GN]
GREEN BAY CORRECTIONAL: Smith Loses Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSUNTOKA SMITH, et al., v.
WARDEN, D. BLACKBURN, JUSTIN SEGERSTROM, D. BROOKS, KELLY REIGNIER,
MAZIN ALSHAKHLY, HSU, TALLIER, WESLAFF, RUSSEL, MICHAEL, and
METTNER, Case No. 2:22-cv-00330-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge
Lynn Adelman entered an order that Osuntoka Smith is assessed
$12.43 as an initial partial payment of the $350.00 fee for filing
this case.
On or before May 20, 2022, he must submit a check or money order
made payable to the Clerk of Court in the amount of $12.43 or
advise the court in writing why he is not able to submit the
assessed amount.
To the extent that he does not have enough money in his regular
account to make the initial partial payment, he is responsible for
making arrangements with authorities to pay the remainder of the
initial partial filing fee from the plaintiff's release account. He
is advised that the language of 28 U.S.C. section 1915(b)(1)
suggests that a prisoner's release account may be invaded to
satisfy an initial partial filing fee only if insufficient funds
are available in his regular account.
The Court further ordered that:
-- if Osuntoka Smith fails to make the initial partial payment
or show cause for failure to do so on or before May 20,
2022, this case may be dismissed without prejudice for
failure to prosecute.
-- a copy of this order be sent to the officer in charge of
the agency where the inmate is confined.
-- no further action will be taken in this case until
the clerk's office receives Osuntoka Smith’s initial
partial filing fee as directed above and the court has
screened the complaint as required by the PLRA, 28 U.S.C.
section 1915A. Once the screening process is complete, a
separate order will issue.
-- Osuntoka Smith's motion to certify case as a class action
is denied.
-- any plaintiff, other than Osuntoka Smith, who wants to drop
out of the case must notify the court by filing a letter
with the Clerk of Court on or before May 20, 2022. Any
plaintiff, other than Osuntoka Smith, who drops out of the
case on or before May 20, 2022, will not have to pay the
filing fee for this case and will avoid risking a strike.
The Plaintiff Smith, who is confined at the Green Bay Correctional
Institution, has filed a pro se complaint, a motion for leave to
proceed without prepaying the filing fee, a motion to appoint
counsel, and a motion for class certification.
This order assesses an initial partial filing fee for Osuntoka
Smith and denies his motion for class certification. This order
also serves as notice to the plaintiffs of the risks and
implications of multi-plaintiff lawsuits, and it provides all
plaintiffs, other than Osuntoka Smith, an opportunity drop out of
the case without incurring the filing fee.
Green Bay Correctional Institution is an adult male
maximum-security correctional facility operated by the Wisconsin
Department of Corrections Division of Adult Institutions in
Allouez, Wisconsin. The prison is located along the east bank of
the Fox River.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ldLXXJ at no extra charge.[CC]
HALL FERRY: Tierney Wins Conditional Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH TIERNEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HALL FERRY PIZZA, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00828-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the
Hon. Judge John A. Ross entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) Conditional Certification;
2. conditionally certifying a class of:
"All current and former delivery driver employees of Halls
Ferry Pizza, Inc. for the period of three years prior to
July 9, 2021 to the present;"
3. conditionally authorizing Plaintiff Joseph Tierney to act
as class representative;
4. authorizing Dolley Law, LLC to act as class counsel;
5. directing the Defendant, no later than May 17, 2022, to
produce and provide to Plaintiff's counsel, in a
reasonably useable format, a data file containing the
names, last-known addresses, phone numbers, email
addresses, dates of birth, and dates of employment of all
class members to facilitate notice of this pending action;
6. approving the Plaintiff's proposed notice and consent
form;
7. directing the Plaintiff to send the notice and consent
form to all identified persons within 14 days of receiving
the information from the Defendant;
8. giving potential class members 60 days after the mailing
of the notices to opt-in to this case; and
9. denying the Plaintiff's motion for entry of Proposed
Order.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39WirmQ at no extra charge.[CC]
HOLTZMAN ENTERPRISES: Parties Seek Stay of Class Cert. Briefing
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAITH GERMAN, and ASHLYN
HOFFMAN, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v.
HOLTZMAN ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a Great Clips – HEI, Case No.
1:19-cv-03540-PAB-STV (D. Colo.), the Parties asks the Court to
enter an order staying briefing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification, Defendant's Objection to Courtroom Minutes/Minute
Order, and Defendant's Motion to Decertify Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) Collective Action.
On March 18, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification. The Defendant filed a Response in opposition to that
Motion on April 20, 2022. The Plaintiffs' Reply is currently due on
May 4, 2022.
The Defendant filed its Objection to Courtroom Minutes/Minute Order
on April 13, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed a Response to that Motion
on April 27, 2022. The Defendant's Reply is currently due on May
11, 2022.
The Defendant filed its Motion to Decertify FLSA Collective on
April 19, 2022. The Plaintiffs' Response to that Motion is
currently due on May 10, 2022.
The parties conferred, and they believe that it is in the interest
of all parties, and in the interest of judicial efficiency, to
temporarily stay briefing on the Pending Motions so that they may
conserve judicial and financial resources and focus on attempting
to resolve this matter through mediation to avoid continued and
costly litigation. The parties also jointly agree that expending
the significant costs related to briefing the Pending Motions may
impact whether mediation is ultimately successful.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NjyZn7 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Claire E. Hunter, Esq.
Shelby Woods, Esq.
Adam M. Harrison, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
730 17th Street, Suite 750
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (720) 255-0370
Facsimile: (720) 668-8989
E-mail: chunter@hkm.com
swoods@hkm.com
aharrison@hkm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Joshua F. Bugos, Esq.
Marisa B. Hudson-Arney, Esq.
CONDIT CSAJAGHY LLC
695 S. Colorado Blvd, Suite 270
Denver, CO 80246
Telephone: (720) 287-6606
E-mail: josh@cclawcolorado.com
marisa@cclawcolorado.com
HORNBLOWER CRUISES: Seeks to Partially Dismiss Shaw's SAC
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shaw v. HORNBLOWER CRUISES
& EVENTS, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10408-VM (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order granting Hornblower's contemplated
motion to partially dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or, in the
alternative, partially denying class certification on a preemptive
basis.
The Plaintiffs Shaw and Press seek to pursue WARN Act claims,
individually and on a class basis, related to the two sites of
employment at which they worked. For now, Hornblower does not seek
dismissal of those claims. In addition, however, Shaw and Press
seek to also pursue WARN Act claims, on a class basis, on behalf of
hundreds of Hornblower employees at various locations across the
country where Shaw and Press never worked. These claims are subject
to dismissal, or preemptive class certification denial, because:
(1) Plaintiffs' allegations that the WARN Act was triggered
at other work locations are insufficiently pled; and
(2) Plaintiffs' individual WARN Act claims, as a matter of
law, cannot be common with or typical of WARN Act claims
of employees at other sites of employment.
As alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff Clyve
Shaw worked as a sales manager for Hornblower, based at
Hornblower's Chelsea Piers Pier 62 location in New York City. The
Plaintiff Kenardro Press worked as a deckhand for Hornblower, based
at Hornblower's Navy Pier location in Chicago. Both employees were
furloughed in March 2020, at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic,
and Shaw was notified of his layoff on August 17, 2020.They bring
this action under the federal, New York, and Illinois WARN Acts
seeking to represent a class of "hundreds" of former Hornblower
employees "throughout [the] United States," "throughout New York
State," and "throughout the State of Illinois," "who were not given
a minimum of 60 days' written notice of termination and whose
employment was terminated as a result of a 'mass layoff' or 'plant
closing'" under those statutes.
Their purported classes include hundreds of former Hornblower
employees who worked at sites across the country distinct from the
two sites where Plaintiffs worked. The Plaintiffs do not even try
to identify the particular worksites across the country at which
they alleged WARN Act violations occurred. Rather, they give
"examples" of cities at which they believe violations may have
occurred, and allege that information showing purported violations
will be "reflected in records maintained by Defendant."
The Plaintiffs assert that there are "questions of law and fact
common to members" of the three classes they purport to represent
(a nationwide federal WARN Act Class, a statewide New York WARN Act
Class, and a statewide Illinois WARN Act Class).
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 29, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FQk94Z at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Shawn Matthew Clark, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
900 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022.3298
Telephone: (212) 497-6840
Facsimile: (212) 583-9600
E-mail: smclark@littler.com
ILLINOIS: Fling of Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 6, 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORRIE WALLACE, and RAVAEL
E. SANTOS, JR.,v. JOHN BALDWIN, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01513
(S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel entered an order
that:
-- Deadlines/Hearings Motion for Jan. 6, 2023
Class Certification due:
-- Presumptive Trial Month set September 2023
for:
On August 17, 2018, Plaintiffs Rafael Santos, Jr. and Corrie
Wallace, inmates of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC)
who are currently housed at Menard Correctional Center, filed
their original Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983
alleging that at various times they have been housed in
constitutionally deficient cells located within the North I and
North II cell houses at Menard.
The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --
Prison Condition.[CC]
INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES: Howard G. Smith Reminds of June 24 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that investors with
substantial losses have opportunity to lead the securities fraud
class action lawsuit against Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc.
("Innovative Industrial Properties" or the "Company") (NYSE:
IIPR).
Class Period: May 7, 2020 - April 13, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 24, 2022
Investors suffering losses on their Innovative Industrial
Properties investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action
at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
The complaint filed alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's
focus is to be a cannabis company lender rather than a real estate
investment trust; (2) that the true values of the Company's
properties are significantly lower than Innovative Industrial
Properties represents; (3) existential issues in its top customers;
(4) that as a result, its top customers may not be able to continue
making payments to the Company, which would face significant issues
replacing these customers; and (5) as a result, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.
To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at
this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action
and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to
learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Howard
G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol
Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at
(215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
INT'L BUSINESS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 6 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the
links below 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, you can
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. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation (NYSE:IBM)
Class Period: April 4, 2017 - October 20, 2021
Deadline: June 6, 2022
For more info: www.bgandg.com/ibm.
The Complaint alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or omitted to disclose that: (1)
Strategic Imperatives Revenue and growth, CAMS and CAMS Components'
revenue and growth, and the Company's Segments' revenue and growth
were artificially inflated as a result of the wrongful
reclassification of revenues from non-strategic to strategic to
make those revenues eligible for treatment as Strategic Imperatives
Revenue; (2) the Company's present success and positive future
growth prospects concerning its Strategic Imperative business
strategy were being fueled by the wrongful reclassification of
revenues from non-strategic to strategic to make those revenues
eligible for treatment as Strategic Imperative Revenue and, as a
result (3) misled the market by portraying the Company's Strategic
Imperative's financial performance and future prospects more
favorable than they actually were as a result of the fraudulent
scheme and/or the wrongful reclassification of revenues from
non-strategic to strategic to make those revenues eligible for
treatment as Strategic Imperatives.
ABBVie, Inc. (NYSE:ABBV)
Class Period: April 30, 2021 - August 31, 2021
Deadline: June 6, 2022
For more info: www.bgandg.com/abbv
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements,
about the company's business and operations. Specifically,
Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
safety concerns about Xeljanz extended to Rinvoq and other JAK
inhibitors; (2) as a result, it was likely that the FDA would
require additional safety warnings for Rinvoq and would delay the
approval of additional treatment indications for Rinvoq; and (3)
therefore, Defendants' statements about the company's business,
operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis, As a result of
the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the significant
decline in the market value of AbbVie's securities, AbbVie
investors have suffered significant damages.
Twitter, Inc. (NYSE:TWTR)
Class Period: March 24, 2022 - April 1, 2022
Deadline: June 13, 2022
For more info: www.bgandg.com/twtr.
On April 4, 2022, Elon Musk announced that he had purchased over 73
million shares of Twitter stock - a 9.2% stake in the Twitter.
Following this news, Twitter stock surged on April 4, 2022, closing
27% higher than its closing price the previous day. The complaint
alleges that by failing to timely disclose his ownership stake,
Musk was able to acquire shares of Twitter less expensively during
the Class Period.
Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
JK ENTERPRISE: Begley Bid for Conditional Status Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREL BEGLEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JK
ENTERPRISE INCORPORATED dba CABARET II, an Oregon Corporation;
JOSEPHINE JABRA KIRAZ, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10,
INCLUSIVE, Case No. 3:21-cv-01031-YY (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge
Youlee Yim You entered an order granting in part the plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification.
The court denies the implementation of plaintiff's proposed order
and use of the proposed notice and instead directs the parties to
confer and finalize a notice and proposed order that is (1) in
accordance with this opinion and (2) distributed by a mutually
agreed-upon third-party claims administrator.
The Plaintiff Begley brings this putative collective action against
the defendants. The Complaint describes the collective action
members as
"all current and former exotic dancers who worked at the
Cabaret II at any time starting three years before this
Complaint was filed, up to the present."
The Complaint alleges four violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA): failure to pay minimum wages, requiring illegal
kickbacks, unlawfully taking tips, and forced tip sharing.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sCbeyT at no extra charge.[CC]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Narguess Noohi Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NARGUESS NOOHI,
individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-03575-TJH-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting class
certification under Rule 23(a), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the
following class:
"All persons, who, between April 17, 2016 and the date of
class certification, purchased one or more Neutrogena
Oil Free Moisture Sensitive Skin products in the state of
California."
The Plaintiff will also move the Court for:
-- injunctive relief;
-- appointment of the Plaintiffs as Class Representative, and
for appointment of Plaintiffs’ attorneys as Class Counsel;
and
-- oral argument.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc. engages in the research
and development of products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 2, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yGG4KD at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Noohi Seeks to File Documents Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NARGUESS NOOHI,
individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-03575-TJH-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff applies for leave of Court to file documents under seal
pursuant to Local Rule 79-5-5.2.2(b).
The documents were designated "Confidential" or "Highly
Confidential" by the Defendant such that L.R. 79-5.2.2(b) governs
the Plaintiff's application.
On June 14, 2021, the Honorable Terry J. Hatter Jr. entered an
order granting the Parties Stipulated Protective Order. The
Stipulated Protective Order permits designation as "CONFIDENTIAL"
or "ATTORNEY EYES ONLY" documents and information that the
Designating Party believes would create a substantial risk of
serious financial or other injury if disclosed.
On April 28, 2022, counsel for Plaintiff telephonically met and
conferred with counsel for the Defendant to meet and confer under
L.R. 79-5.2.2(b) with regards to filing the application for leave
to file under seal documents designated by Defendant as
Confidential or Attorney Eyes Only.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc. engages in the research
and development of products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 2, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3a8CChC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
LEPRINO FOODS: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Vasquez Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISAIAS VASQUEZ and LINDA
HEFKE, on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v.
LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY
PRODUCTS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; and DOES 1–50,
inclusive, Case No. 1:17-cv-00796-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Court
entered an order:
1. The Defendant's motion for summary judgment and
decertification is denied;
2. The case is stayed pending the California Supreme Court's
decision in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.,
Cal. S. Ct. Docket No. S258966;
3. All currently set dates and deadlines, including the June
7, 2022 trial date, are vacated;
4. The parties are directed to file a joint status report
within 21 days of resolution of Naranjo by the California
Supreme Court.
This class action lawsuit, brought before the Court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. section 1332(d)(2), involves an employment dispute between
Plaintiff class representatives Isaias Vasquez and Linda Hefke and
Defendants Leprino Foods Company and Leprino Foods Dairy Products
Company.
On March 30, 2020, the Court certified Plaintiffs' claim that the
Defendants required their non-exempt workers to remain "on-call"
during their meal and rest breaks in violation of California law.
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and
Motion for Decertification with respect to Plaintiffs' "on-call"
break claim.
Leprino Foods is an American company with headquarters in Denver,
Colorado that produces cheese, lactose, whey protein and sweet
whey.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wvIlpj at no extra charge.[CC]
LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of June 20 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming June 20, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Li-Cycle Holdings Corp. f/k/a Peridot
Acquisition Corp. ("Li-Cycle" or the "Company") (NYSE: LICY)
securities between February 16, 2021 and March 23, 2022, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Li-Cycle 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/li-cycle-holdings-corp/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On August 10, 2021, Li-Cycle merged with special purpose
acquisition company, Peridot Acquisition Corp.
On March 24, 2022, Blue Orca Capital published a report which
described Li-Cycle as a "near fatal combination of stock promotion,
laughable governance, a broken business hemorrhaging cash and
highly questionable Enron-like accounting." The report also
alleged, among other things, that Li-Cycle had "diverted $529,902
in investor capital to the family [] of its founders through a
series of highly questionable related party payments," and that its
"cash burn is so severe and far above previous guidance" which
"will require the Company to raise at least $1 billion . . . in
large part by massively diluting current shareholders." The Report
further stated that the Company's largest customer, Traxys, is not
actually a customer, but a "broker or marketing partner that
on-sells Li-Cycle's black mass to end buyers," and that "not only
is Traxys not the end buyer, but the revenue recognized by Li-Cycle
is merely Li-Cycle's initial estimate of the price of the product
it expects to receive from the end customer once the final deal is
complete."
On this news, Li-Cycle's stock fell $0.47, or 5.6%, to close at
$7.93 per share on March 24, 2022, thereby injuring investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Li-Cycles largest customer, Traxys North America LLC, is
not actually a customer, but merely a broker providing working
capital financial to the Company while Traxys tries to sell
Li-Cycles product to end customers; (2) the Company engaged in
highly questionable related party transactions; (3) the Company's
mark-to-model accounting is vulnerable to abuse and gave a false
impression of growth; (4) a significant portion of the Company's
reported revenues were derived from simply marking up receivables
on products that had not been sold; (5) the Company's gross margins
have likely been negative since inception; (6) the Company will
require an additional $1 billion of funding to support its planned
growth (which is a figure greater than the Company raised via the
merger); and (7) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Li-Cycle securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than June 20,
2022 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]
LUCID GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 31 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Lucid Group, Inc.
("Lucid" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LCID) of a class action
securities lawsuit.
CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of
Lucid investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities
fraud. This lawsuit is on behalf of a class of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Lucid common stock
between November 15, 2021, and February 28, 2022, inclusive. Follow
the link below to get more information and be contacted by a member
of our team:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/lucid-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=27397&wire=4
LCID investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500.
CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about Lucid's business and
operations. Specifically, the Company overstated its production
capabilities while concealing that "extraordinary supply chain and
logistics challenges" were hampering Lucid's operations. As a
result of the defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
significant decline in the market value of Lucid's common stock,
Lucid investors have suffered significant damages.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Lucid during the relevant
time frame, you have until May 31, 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 are a class member, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
There is no cost or obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi &
Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases.
Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex
securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our
clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in
ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the
top securities litigation firms in the United States. [GN]
LUCID GROUP: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of May 31 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Attention Lucid Group, Inc. ("Lucid") (NASDAQ: LCID) shareholders:
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on May 31 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit
is on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired Lucid common stock between November 15, 2021,
and February 28, 2022, inclusive.
If you suffered a loss on your investment in Lucid, contact us
about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost
or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/lucid-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=27214&wire=4
ABOUT THE ACTION: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about Lucid's business and
operations. Specifically, the Company overstated its production
capabilities while concealing that "extraordinary supply chain and
logistics challenges" were hampering Lucid's operations. As a
result of the defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
significant decline in the market value of Lucid's common stock,
Lucid investors have suffered significant damages.
DEADLINE: May 31, 2022
Aggrieved Lucid investors only have until May 31, 2022 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required
to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
MADISON COUNTY, IN: Inmates Class Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken de la Bastide, writing for The Herald Bulletin, reports that
each member of the class action lawsuit filed against the Madison
County Sheriff's Department will receive $28 per hour they were
detained longer than 48 hours without a warrant.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Judge Sarah Barker approved a settlement agreement on May 16.
The lawsuit filed in 2017 alleged that people were arrested without
a warrant and detained in the Madison County jail for 48 hours or
longer without a court appearance or notification of the charges.
Mark Long contacted the law firm about filing a lawsuit against the
county and it was determined that other people were detained on a
warrantless arrest for more than 48 hours without a judicial
determination that probable cause existed.
People included in the class can file for a special damage award if
they lost a job while incarcerated or suffered physical or
psychological damages.
The settlement agreement calls for Madison County through its
insurance carrier to pay $417,012 for 354 members of the class and
$200,000 for 18 people that have requested special damages which
will be determined by a special master appointed by the court.
Each of the 354 members of the class will receive a minimum of
$1,344.
Judge Barker also approved $350,000 for the Fort Wayne law firm of
Christopher Myer & Associates that brought the lawsuit started by
Mark Long.
Long will receive an additional $5,000.
Barker said there were 477 people identified in the class and 123
were not able to be contacted and not included in the settlement
agreement.
She ordered the settlement funds be deposited within the next 30
days so the distribution to members of the class can begin.
"The agreed amount represents a good settlement," Barker said.
"There is a good rate of recovery at $28 per hour."
Barker said the lawsuit was an important case because it included
significant civil rights violations.
"I commend both sides for hammering out an agreement," she said.
"It's important that county sheriffs, not just in Madison County,
keep careful records of when people are detained," Barker said.
"There is a larger good that has been accomplished."
Judge Barker noted that Myer & Associates have filed 11 class
action lawsuits against county sheriff departments concerning the
detaining of inmates for 48 hours or longer without a warrant being
served or a hearing taking place. [GN]
MATCH GROUP: Must File Class Certification Response by May 25
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crutchfield v. Match Group
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-02356 (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge
Karen Gren Scholer entered an order granting the Defendants'
unopposed motion for amended briefing schedule on the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.
-- The Defendants shall file their May 25, 2022
response by:
-- Any reply, if necessary, shall July 13, 2022
be filed by:
The nature of suit states Contract -- Stockholders Suits.
Match Group is an American internet and technology company
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. It owns and operates the largest
global portfolio of popular online dating services including
Tinder, Match.com, Meetic, OkCupid, Hinge, PlentyOfFish, Ship, and
OurTime, totalling over 45 global dating companies.[CC]
MAZDA MOTOR: Seeks to File Docs Under Seal or with Redactions
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Terry Sonneveldt, et al.,
v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., et al., Case No.
8:19-cv-01298-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants submit an
Application for an order permitting them to file the following
documents under seal or with redactions, as applicable:
-- Portions of Exhibit A to Defendant's motion to exclude the
report and testimony of Christopher White, Ph.D;
-- Portions of Defendants' Memorandum in support of their
Motion to exclude the report and testimony of Christopher
White, Ph.D;
-- Portions of Exhibits 1 and 21 to the Declaration of Darlene
M. Cho in support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification; and
-- Exhibits 3, 5, 6, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 attached to the
Declaration of Darlene M. Cho in support of Defendants'
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
On April 29, 2022, Defendants filed with the Court unsealed or
unredacted versions of the foregoing documents and served unsealed
or unredacted versions of the foregoing documents on Plaintiffs'
counsel. Contemporaneously with this filing, Defendants have served
on Plaintiffs' counsel a copy of the Cho Decl. and unsealed or
unredacted versions of all documents, except that all
personally-identifying information has been redacted from the
documents.
In addition, the Defendants have on Ford's counsel a copy of the
Cho Decl. and unredacted versions of Exhibit A to Defendant's
motion to exclude the report and testimony of Christopher White,
Ph.D, Defendants' Memorandum in support of their Motion to exclude
the report and testimony of Christopher White, Ph.D, and Exhibits 1
and 21 to the Declaration of Darlene M. Cho in support of
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification, except that all personally-identifying information
were redacted from the documents.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 2, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39VhLhx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael L. Mallow, Esq.
Mark D. Campbell, Esq.
Darlene M. Cho, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
2049 Century Park East, Suite 3000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 285-8330
Facsimile: (424) 204-9093
E-mail: mmallow@shb.com
mdcampbell@shb.com
dcho@shb.com
MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Burgers' False Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brooklyn Magazine reports that a New York man is asking "Where's
the beef?" and is taking McDonald's and Wendy's to court for
answers.
Justin Chimienti filed a class action lawsuit in a Brooklyn court
against McDonald's and Wendy's, accusing the fast food giants of
falsely advertising how big and juicy their burgers are. The
patties in question are McDonald's Big Mac and Wendy's Bourbon
Bacon Cheeseburger, both of which Chimienti said they weren't as
voluptuous as advertised.
He's accusing the chains of using undercooked patties in their ads,
which makes the burgers 15 percent to 20 percent larger than what
customers are served. Chimienti's is complaining that the meat
shrinks 25 percent when they're cooked.
In the 35-page complaint, which comes just 50 days after a similar
suit leveled at Burger King, he says their ads are "unfair and
financially damaging consumers as they are receiving food that is
much lower in value than what is being promised."
Chimienti puts an altruistic spin on his lawsuit, alleging the
chains' "actions are especially concerning now that inflation,
food, and meat prices are very high and many consumers, especially
lower income consumers, are struggling financially."
He's seeking a whopping $50 million in damages. However, he's
"unlikely" to win, according to at least one expert. The court will
seek out customers personally victimized by the
less-than-impressive meat.
"Both of those are an uphill battle for the plaintiff to prove,"
Mark Bartholomew, law professor at the University of Buffalo in New
York, said, adding that the companies could argue that the public
expects some "exaggeration" in their ads. [GN]
MED-DATA INC: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to August 4
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE TOKARSKI, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MED-DATA, INC.,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00631-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tana Lin
entered an order that the current deadlines regarding class
certification are extended by 60 days, as follows:
Current New
Deadline Deadline
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs May 6, 2022 Aug. 4, 2022
to File their Motion
for Class Certification:
-- Deadline for Defendants' June 3, 2022 Sept. 1, 2022
Response to the Motion for
Class Certification:
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs' June 24, 2022 Sept. 22, 2022
Reply to the Motion
for Class Certification:
MedData provides medical revenue cycle management services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3llnCz7 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiff, are:
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Ryan Tack-Hooper, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Adams, 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: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
rtack-hooper@terrellmarshall.com
eadams@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
John Heenan, Esq.
Teague Westrope
HEENAN & COOK
1631 Zimmerman Trail, Suite 1
Billings, MT 59102
Telephone: (406) 839-9081
Email: john@lawmontana.com
teague@lawmontana.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ryan Maxey, Esq.
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
rmaxey@forthepeople.com
mram@forthepeople.com
The Attorneys for the Defendant, are
Ralph H Palumbo, Esq.
Lynn M. Engel, Esq.
ARETE LAW GROUP PLLC
1218 Third Avenue, Suite 2100
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 428-3150
Facsimile: (206) 428-3251
E-mail: rpalumbo@aretelaw.com
lengel@aretelaw.com
- and -
Kent M. Adams, Esq.
WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ
EDELMAN & DICKER (HOUSTON)
909 Fannin Street, Suite 3300
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (713) 353-2027
Facsimile: (713) 785-7780
E-mail: kent.adams@wilsonelser.com
The Attorneys for the Respondents, are:
Matthew James Ide, Esq.
7900 Se 28th Street, Ste 500
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Telephone: (206) 625-1326
Facsimile: (206) 622-0909
E-mail: mjide@yahoo.com
MEI PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 16
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of MEI Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: MEIP) resulting from
allegations that MEI Pharma may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
"[R]evenue was overstated in some quarters and understated in other
quarters in the Company's financial statements during 2020 and
2021. The Company will therefore restate its previously filed
annual and quarterly financial statements for periods from June 30,
2020 forward."
Tweet this
SO WHAT: If you purchased MEI Pharma securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6192 or 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.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On May 13, 2022, after market hours, MEI Pharma
announced restatements of its financial statements for certain
quarters for 2020 and 2021. In part, MEI Pharma stated, "[R]evenue
was overstated in some quarters and understated in other quarters
in the Company's financial statements during 2020 and 2021. The
Company will therefore restate its previously filed annual and
quarterly financial statements for periods from June 30, 2020
forward."
On this news, MEI Pharma share prices fell $0.0242, or 4.6%, to
open at $0.4958 per share on May 16, 2022, damaging investors.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
META PLATFORMS: Faces Suit Over Snapchat Lenses Facial Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that in the
wake of the $650 million paid out by Facebook parent Meta, SnapChat
users in Illinois are demanding the operators of the popular social
media app also pay out, accusing Snap of also violating Illinois'
strict biometrics privacy law.
On May 11, attorney James C. Vlahakis, of the Sulaiman Law Group,
of suburban Lombard, filed suit in Chicago federal court against
Snap Inc. The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of named
plaintiffs Maribel Ocampo and Adrian Coss.
The plaintiffs are identified in the complaint only as people who
live in northern Illinois and have used SnapChat, the photo sharing
app developed and operated by Santa Monica, California-based Snap.
The lawsuit centers on the SnapChat app's Lenses feature, which
allows users to augment their images, known as Snaps, to add a
variety of effects, frames and filters.
The lawsuit claims the Lenses feature improperly uses facial
recognition technology developed by Looksery Inc. to capture images
of users' faces. The lawsuit asserts Snap captures users' faces
without their consent, and without notifying them that their images
were being captured.
The lawsuit asserts those alleged failures by Snap violates the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
The BIPA law has been on the books since 2008. However, since 2015,
a growing cadre of plaintiffs' lawyers have used the law to spawn a
blitz of thousands of class action lawsuits. The bulk of the
lawsuits have targeted employers, accusing them of improperly
requiring workers to scan their fingerprints or other biometric
identifiers when punching the clock to begin or end work shifts, or
to access secure areas in the workplace.
But a significant number of the lawsuits have also taken aim at big
tech companies, like Facebook and Google.
And the law carries a big potential bite. Under the law, plaintiffs
can demand damages of $1,000-$5,000 per violation. Courts have
interpreted the law to define individual violations as each time a
company's technology scans a user's unique biometric identifiers,
which can include their facial geometry.
When multiplied across thousands or even millions of users,
scanning biometric identifiers multiple times per day, the
potential damages can rise well into the many millions or even
billions of dollars.
In their new complaint, the plaintiffs estimate as many as 500,000
Snaps could have been created that allegedly violate the BIPA law.
That could place Snap on the hook for as much as $2.5 billion in
damages, should Snap take the case to trial and lose.
When sued under the BIPA law for claims related to face scans
conducted under its photo tagging feature, Facebook estimated it
could also face billions of dollars in potential damages, if it had
lost at trial. To eliminate its risk of such a payout, Facebook
instead agreed to settle the case for $650 million. That resulted
in payouts of about $400 to Illinois Facebook users, and nearly
$100 million in fees for the lawyers who brought the case.
Google has also agreed to pay $100 million to end the claims
against them, related to face scans in the Google Photos app.
Despite the potential for massive damages, courts have also
rejected nearly every attempt by defendants to get out from under
the lawsuits, or even to reduce their potential liability. The
Illinois Supreme Court, for instance, has specifically ruled that
plaintiffs suing under the BIPA law don't need to establish they
suffered any kind of particular or concrete injury stemming from
the improper biometric scans.
The court has said plaintiffs need only allege their rights were
violated under the law to bring massive lawsuits, that business
groups and defendants have said could be potentially ruinous. This
has prompted calls from business groups for reform, to stem the
rising tide of so-called "gotcha" class action lawsuits under
BIPA.
The plaintiffs in the Snap action are seeking certification of a
class of potentially millions of other SnapChat users in Illinois.
[GN]
META PLATFORMS: Opposes Facebook Ad Class Action Notice Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Tabacco, writing for Law Street, reports that Meta
Platforms Inc. presented the court with a dispute over the
plaintiffs' proposed notice plan to be presented to potential class
members who purchased advertising space on Facebook and Instagram.
The opposition argued that the current language is one-sided, does
not present class members with neutral information, and must be
modified.
The 2018 case concerns allegations that Meta exaggerated the
expected impact potential advertisers could achieve by purchasing
advertisement space on its Instagram and Facebook platforms. In
February 2021, Judge James Donato ruled on Meta's motion to
dismiss, allowing the plaintiffs' California Unfair Competition Law
(UCL), common law fraudulent misrepresentation, and fraudulent
concealment claims to proceed.
The following month, the court certified several classes of ad
purchasers. Thereafter, the parties began to work on a notice and
distribution plan.
In the filing, Facebook says that the parties collaborated to
submit a mutually agreeable notice plan, but they did not agree on
everything. The social media juggernaut explains that they disputed
the content of the proposed notifications purportedly because the
plaintiffs "refused to include any statement of Meta's defenses at
all, other than a blanket denial of the allegations." Meta argues
this is incorrect because civil procedure rules require courts to
convey objective information about the nature of the claims,
inclusive of the defendants' defenses.
The plaintiffs' proposed notice reduces Meta's position to "a
boilerplate, ‘Meta denies the allegations,'" the opposition
contends of the proposed in-app banner and long- and short-form
notices. According to Meta, the current language prevents class
members from evaluating opposing viewpoints in determining whether
to opt out or be bound by the settlement.
In turn, the company requests modified short- and long-form notices
as well as an expanded in-app banner that appears when users hover
their mouse on the banner that shows Meta's defenses.
The approval hearing is scheduled for June 9.
Facebook is represented by Latham & Watkins LLP and the plaintiffs
by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC and Law Offices of Charles
Reichmann. [GN]
META PLATFORMS: Plaintiffs to Get Settlement Payouts in BIPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Connor Day, writing for WQAD8, reports that payments are rolling
out in the settlement of a 2020 lawsuit against Facebook, now Meta,
over its use of facial recognition technology that violated an
Illinois privacy law.
In an update posted to an official website for the lawsuit, it was
announced that beginning May 9, payments estimated at $200-400
would begin rolling out to plaintiffs in the suit.
Officials said that if you are expecting a payment and do not
receive one within two weeks of May 9, wait until mid-June to make
an inquiry.
The $650 million settlement was approved by a U.S. District Judge
in February 2021, after the 2020 suit accused Facebook of using
users' facial recognition data and other biometrics without their
consent, specifically citing the company had failed to get
permission before scanning and storing faces in users' photos
through a "photo tagging" feature that has since been removed.
The lawsuit was made possible by Illinois' Biometric Information
Privacy Act, which allows consumers to sue companies for harvesting
biometric data without permission.
The Associated Press contributed to this report. [GN]
META PLATFORMS: Settles Class Action in Ill. Over Privacy Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
More than a million Illinois residents will receive a $397
settlement payment from Facebook, thanks to a legal battle over the
platform's since-retired photo-tagging system that used facial
recognition. It's been nearly seven years since the 2015
class-action lawsuit was first filed, which accused Facebook of
breaking a state privacy law that forbids companies from collecting
biometric data without informing users. The platform has since
faced broad, global criticism for its use of facial recognition
tech, and last year Meta halted the practice completely on Facebook
and Instagram. But as Vox notes, the company has made no promises
to avoid facial recognition in future products.
Even though it was first filed in Illinois, the class-action
lawsuit eventually wound up on Facebook's home turf - at the U.S.
District Court for Northern California. Nevertheless, the court
repeatedly denied the platform's many motions to dismiss the
lawsuit and eventually certified the Illinois class-action.
Facebook tried to appeal the case certification with the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, but was rejected. After Facebook
initially agreed to settle the lawsuit for $550 million - which at
the time was the largest payout from an online privacy class-action
lawsuit - a federal judge fought back and said the amount was too
small. Finally, the company last year agreed to a settlement total
of $650 million.
The issue at hand was Facebook's old photo-tagging system, which
relied on facial recognition to recognize users in photos and
videos. Attorneys representing Illinois residents argued that the
platform's "Suggested Tags" feature violated the state's Biometric
Information Privacy Act. Any Facebook user in Illinois who posted a
photo of themselves or was tagged on the platform during a certain
time period was eligible to file a claim. Nearly 1.6 million
Illinois residents in total were included in the settlement.
A number of Redditors reported receiving their settlement checks
via direct deposit or in the mail, though not everyone has received
their payment yet. "I did mine and my wife's at the same time and
got one. This was through Zelle," noted one user on Reddit.
Some who opted to receive a check in the mail were a little thrown
off by its non-descript appearance. "Honestly I almost threw mine
away. It was sent in a brown envelope made of recycled paper. Felt
just like a paper bag. I thought for sure it was junk mail," said a
user on Reddit.[GN]
MILLIMAN INC: Healy Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES HEALY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. MILLIMAN, INC., d/b/a
INTELLISCRIPT, Case No. 2:20-cv-01473-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge John C. Coughenour entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion to seal.
The Clerk is directed to maintain docket numbers 100 and 102
under seal and the Court orders as follows:
1. The following classes are certified:
a. 1681e(b) Inaccuracy Class:
All persons residing in the United States (including
all Territories and otherpolitical subdivisions of the
United States), beginning five years prior to the
filing of this Complaint and through the resolution of
this action, about whom the Defendant sold a report to
a third party containing one or more items of
information which did not pertain to the individual who
was the subject of the report;"
b. 1681i Failure to Properly Reinvestigate Class:
"All persons residing in the United States (including
all Territories and other political subdivisions of the
United States), beginning five years prior to the
filing of this Complaint and continuing through the
resolution of this action, who disputed the
completeness and/or accuracy of one or more items of
information on an IntelliScript report, and for whom
Defendant responded with form/template communication
substantially in form of MM_HEALY000315;"
2. James Healy is appointed as representative of each class;
3. Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC and Francis Mailman
Soumilas PC are appointed as class counsel;
4. The parties shall meet and confer, and within 60 days of
the entry of this order, submit a joint status report
containing proposed case management deadlines for the
remainder and their proposal for notice to the class to
the Court for approval; and
5. Plaintiff may file another version of its motion for class
certification with the redactions discussed above removed.
No other changes are permitted.
Milliman, formerly Milliman & Robertson, is an international
actuarial and consulting firm based in Seattle, Washington.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NhrcX3 at no extra charge.[CC]
MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Seeks Denial of Cole Class Status Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE COLE, BARBARA
KOOSTRA, MARY-ANN SONTAG BOWMAN, and RHONDIE VOORHEES, v. MONTANA
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA–MISSOULA, and JOHN DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-50, Case No. 9:21-cv-00088-BMM (D. Mont.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting their motion to
deny class Certification.
The Plaintiffs' certification request is unsupported by controlling
Rule 23 jurisprudence and would result in an overbroad and
unmanageable class based on weak and speculative evidence. Plainly,
the Plaintiffs lack commonality, lack typicality, lack a
sufficiently numerous class, lack adequate class representatives,
have an improper class definition, and fail to create a class
appropriate for treatment under Rule 23(b)(2) or 23(b)(3), the
Defendants contend.
The Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to establish the
elements of Rule 23 and class certification should be denied, the
Defendant adds.
The Montana University System was created on July 1, 1994, when the
Montana Board of Regents of Higher Education restructured the
state's public colleges and universities, with the goal of
streamlining the state's higher education in the wake of decreased
state funding.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 29, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yF324A at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Susan Moriarity Miltko, Esq.
James D. Johnson, Esq.
Hannah I. Higgins, Esq.
WILLIAMS LAW FIRM, P.C.
235 E. Pine, P.O. Box 9440
Missoula, MT 59807-9440
Telephone: (406) 721-4350
E-mail: susan@wmslaw.com
james@wmslaw.com
hannah@wmslaw.com
MORPHE COSMETICS: Faces Suit Over Eye Makeup Products' False Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Fashion Law reports that Morphe Cosmetics is on the receiving
end of a proposed class action lawsuit, accusing it of knowingly
engaging in false advertising, unfair competition, negligence, and
products liability in connection with its manufacture and sale of
makeup that is "inherently dangerous." According to the complaint
that they filed in a California federal court last month, Crystal
Damato, Amanda Montgomery, and Taylor Maxwell (the "plaintiffs")
claim that Morphe is offering up eye makeup products that "contain
color additives and ingredients that are dangerous when used on the
immediate eye area," and at the same time, failing to alert
consumers -- including children -- about the risks of such known
dangers.
In their 52-page complaint, Damato, Montgomery, and Maxwell allege
that they used Morphe eye makeup - including its eyeshadow
palettes, eyeliners, and Colorfix 24-hour Cream Color - as
instructed and encouraged by the popular beauty brand and "suffered
physical injuries as a result." Specifically, they claim that these
products contain an array of color additives, such as FD&C Red No.
4, D&C Red No. 6, and D&C Violet No. 2, among many others, which
have been designated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as
"unsuitable and unapproved for cosmetic use in the eye area."
("Both the FDA and California Health & Safety Code tightly regulate
color additives for use in cosmetic products," the plaintiffs
assert.)
The plaintiffs contend that the 14-year-old beauty brand is running
afoul of the law by representing that its eye makeup products "are
safe for use in the eye area," and labeling and packaging the
products in a way that is "false and/or misleading," namely, by
"omitting material facts about the safety of the products."
Primarily, they claim that Morphe - which gained widespread
popularity thanks to its eyeshadow palettes and collaborations with
YouTube mega-stars like Jeffree Star and James Charles - does not
warn consumers that the products are "not safe for [their] intended
use or that the products contain harmful ingredients." It also does
not alert consumers of "the known dangers and risks associated with
the harmful ingredients," per the complaint.
Los Angeles-based Morphe's "advertising, marketing, packaging, and
all other forms of communication, including [its] website, each
fail to provide any warning whatsoever regarding the known dangers
associated with the intended use of the products," according to the
plaintiffs, who assert that Morphe's website merely includes "vague
language and inconsistent statements such as '*Caution: Pressed
pigments not intended for use in eye area.'" As a matter of law,
the plaintiffs argue that this language - which is buried in
lengthy lists of ingredients, "is not a safety warning because it
does not: (1) assist the consumer in understanding the danger; and
(2) it is not conveyed in a manner that a reasonable person would
see, receive, and understand."
Such disclaimers are "unlikely to reach consumers at all because
they are located in the least prominent location of Morphe's
website rather than in a conspicuous location such as the
individual Products' landing pages and/or description pages," and
in fact, the plaintiffs argue that "consumers can navigate through
the entire purchasing process online at Morphe.com without ever
encountering [its] hidden disclaimer."
Similarly, the products' packaging "fails to provide any warning
regarding the known dangers associated with the intended use of the
products," as indications, such as "a tiny symbol of an eye with a
line though it, fail in every aspect to warn consumers of the known
hazards associated with using the products for their intended use."
Despite (allegedly) knowing that its eye makeup products are not
safe for their intended use (i.e., cosmetic application to the eye
area), Damato, Montgomery, and Maxwell assert in their lawsuit that
Morphe not only encouraged the use of the products for the eye area
but actively attempted to work around federal regulations by using
"deceptive and misleading language, such as 'artistry palette' or
'pressed pigments,'" as opposed to "eyeshadow." The problem,
according to the plaitniffs, however, is that "pressed pigments are
indistinguishable from eyeshadow, [and] the only reasonable and
foreseeable use for [Morphe's] pressed pigments is as eyeshadow to
be used for cosmetic application around the eye area."
Morphe's "use of these euphemisms allow [it] to sell the products
alongside its other eyeshadows even though the products contain
harmful ingredients and are unlawful to sell for cosmetic use in
the eye area," they argue. And the brand "knows, or should have
known, that [they] and [other] consumers are likely to be misled by
the phrase 'pressed pigment' because the products are packaged,
marketed, and sold as eye shadows; there is no generally understood
meaning of the phrase pressed pigment; [its] website does not
explain how pressed pigments differ from eyeshadow; and [its]
promotional images, tutorials, and other advertising materials
instruct and encourage 'pressed pigments' to be used for cosmetic
application in the eye area."
Damato, Montgomery, and Maxwell contend that they are other
consumers "were under the reasonable belief that Morphe Eye Makeup
was safe for its intended use, cosmetic application to the eye
area," and thus, suffered damages as a result.
With the foregoing in mind, the plaintiffs set out claims of breach
of implied warranties, false advertising, unfair competition,
negligence, strict products liability, and unjust enrichment, among
others, and are seeking damages that exceed $5 million, injunctive
relief, and certification of their class action to enable as many
as "tens of thousands of [other] people" who have been damaged by
Morphe to join pool of plaintiffs.
A representative for Morphe was not immediately available to
comment on the lawsuit.
The case is Crystal Damato, et al, v. Morphe LLC, et al,
3:22-cv-02110 (N.D.Cal.) [GN]
MR. VACUUM: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Tavarez Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTORIANO TAVAREZ,
Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
MR. VACUUM INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-09945-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Gregory H. Woods entered a civil case management plan and
scheduling order as follows:
-- All fact discovery shall be Aug. 30, 2022
completed no later than:
-- Initial requests for production June 2, 2022
of documents pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 34 shall be:
-- Depositions pursuant to Fed. R. Aug. 30, 2022
Civ. P. 30, 31 shall be completed
by:
-- Requests to admit pursuant to June 2, 2022
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 shall be served
by:
-- All expert discovery shall be Oct. 14, 2022
completed no later than:
-- Motions for summary judgment, Nov. 14, 2022
if any, shall be filed no
later than:
-- The Court will hold a status Oct. 31, 2022
conference on:
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ltj5Fn at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP
420 Lexington Ave No. 2440
New York, NY 10170
Telephone: (212) 500-5010
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael Steven Samuel
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
38 W 32nd St. No. 1110
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
NATERA INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 27 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Natera, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTRA) investors who
suffered significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities
fraud class action has been filed and certain investors have the
opportunity to lead the case.
Class Period: Feb. 26, 2020 - Apr. 19, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 27, 2022
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/NTRA
Contact An Attorney Now: NTRA@hbsslaw.com | 844-916-0895
Natera, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTRA) Securities Fraud Class Action:
In the past, Defendants have repeatedly claimed that its screening
test for kidney transplant failure ("Prospera") was more accurate
than competing tests and that its non-invasive prenatal test
("Panorama") was reliable.
According to the complaint, Defendants misrepresented or failed to
disclose that: (1) Panorama was not reliable and resulted in high
rates of false positives; (2) Prospera did not have superior
precision compared to competing tests; (3) as a result of
Defendants' false and misleading claims about Natera's technology,
the company was exposed to substantial legal and regulatory risks;
and, (4) Natera relied upon deceptive sales and billing practices
to drive its revenue growth.
On Jan. 1, 2022, The New York Times published a report about the
accuracy of Panorama and competing tests and found that positive
results for genetic disorders such as DiGeorge and Prader-Willi
syndromes when using Natera's test are incorrect more than 80% of
the time.
Next, on Jan. 14, 2022 the Campaign for Accountability non-profit
watchdog group filed a complaint requesting the SEC to investigate
whether Natera knowingly overstated the accuracy of Panorama.
Then, on Mar. 9, 2022, analyst Hindenburg Research published a
scathing report entitled "Natera: Pioneers In Deceptive Medical
Billing." Hindenburg concluded, based in part on more than 2 dozen
interviews with former Natera employees, patients and industry
experts that "Natera's revenue growth has been fueled by deceptive
sales and billing practices aimed at doctors, insurance companies
and expectant mothers."
Finally, on Mar. 14, 2022, a federal jury found that Natera
intentionally and willfully misled the public by utilizing false
advertisements to market Prospera as being more effective than
CareDx's competing AlloSure test.
"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Natera
intentionally misled investors about the reliability and
superiority of its tests," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman
partner leading the investigation.
If you invested in Natera and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Natera should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email NTRA@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law
firm focusing on corporate accountability through class-action law.
The firm is home to a robust securities litigation practice and
represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers
and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by
corporate negligence and fraud. More about the firm and its
successes can be found at hbsslaw.com.
Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN]
NATERA INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 27 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP(www.ktmc.com)
informs investors that the firm has filed a securities class action
lawsuit against Natera, Inc. ("Natera") on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Natera common
stock between February 26, 2020, and April 19, 2022, inclusive (the
"Class Period").
YOU CAN CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK OR COPY AND PASTE IN YOUR
BROWSER:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/natera-inc?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=natera&mktm=r
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: JUNE 27, 2022
CLASS PERIOD: FEBRUARY 26, 2020 through APRIL 19, 2022
CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS: James Maro, Esq. (484)
270-1453 or Email at info@ktmc.com
Kessler Topaz is one of the world's foremost advocates in
protecting the public against corporate fraud and other wrongdoing.
Our securities fraud litigators are regularly recognized as leaders
in the field individually and our firm is both feared and respected
among the defense bar and the insurance bar. We are proud to have
recovered billions of dollars for our clients and the classes of
shareholders we represent.
NATERA'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
Natera, a Delaware corporation with principal executive offices in
Austin, Texas, offers genetic testing in the areas of women's
health, oncology, and organ health. Among other things, the Company
produces and markets a non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT), called
"Panorama," and a screening test for kidney transplant failure,
called "Prospera." Throughout the Class Period, Defendants
repeatedly assured investors that Panorama was reliable, that
Prospera was more accurate than competing tests, and that Natera's
growth was driven by its superior technology and customer
experience.
Investors, however, began to learn the truth on January 1, 2022,
when The New York Times published a detailed report calling into
question the accuracy of certain prenatal tests manufactured by
Natera and other diagnostic testing companies. Among other things,
The New York Times reported that Natera's positive results for
several genetic disorders were incorrect more than 80 percent of
the time. On this news, the price of Natera common stock fell $5.35
per share, or approximately 6% over two trading days, from a close
of $93.39 per share on December 31, 2021, to close at $88.04 per
share on January 4, 2022.
Less than two weeks later, on January 14, 2022, the Campaign for
Accountability-a nonprofit watchdog group-filed a complaint with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission requesting an
investigation as to whether Natera repeatedly claimed - in
marketing materials and earnings calls - that its tests are much
more reliable than it appears they really are. On this news, the
price of Natera common stock fell $6.29 per share, or more than 9%,
from a close of $67.37 per share on January 14, 2022, to close at
$61.08 per share on January 18, 2022.
Then, on March 9, 2022, Hindenburg Research issued an investigative
report alleging, among other things, that "Natera's revenue growth
has been fueled by deceptive sales and billing practices aimed at
doctors, insurance companies and expectant mothers." On this news,
the price of Natera common stock fell as much as $28.65 per share,
or more than 52%, from a close of $54.75 per share on March 8,
2022, to an intra-day low of $26.10 per share on March 9, 2022.
Several days later, on March 14, 2022, a jury found that Natera had
intentionally and willfully misled the public by utilizing false
advertisements to market Prospera in violation of federal and state
laws. Among other things, the jury found that Natera's marketing
falsely claimed that Prospera was more accurate than the competing
kidney transplant testing offered by CareDx, Inc. Ultimately, the
jury awarded CareDx, Inc. $44.9 million in monetary damages. On
this news, Natera common stock fell as much as $8.81 per share, or
approximately 22.5%, from an intra-day high of $39.13 per share on
March 14, 2022, to close at $30.32 per share on March 15, 2022.
Finally, on April 19, 2022, the United States Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) issued a safety communication "to educate
patients and health care providers and to help reduce the
inappropriate use of [NIPTs]." The FDA cautioned that statements
about NIPTs' reliability and accuracy "may not be supported with
sound scientific evidence" and revealed the existence of "cases
where a screening test reported a genetic abnormality and a
confirmatory diagnostic test later found that the fetus was
healthy." The FDA suggested that patients discuss benefits and
risks with a healthcare provider before deciding to undergo NIPT or
making any pregnancy-related decisions on the basis of NIPT
results. In addition, the FDA advised health care providers that
they should not rely on NIPT results alone to diagnose chromosomal
abnormalities or disorders. Following this news, the price of
Natera common stock fell as much as $1.53 per share, or
approximately 3.9%, from an intra-day high of $39.63 per share on
April 19, 2022, to close at $38.10 per share on April 20, 2022.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Panorama was not reliable and resulted in high rates of false
positives; (2) Prospera did not have superior precision compared to
competing tests; (3) as a result of Defendants' false and
misleading claims about Natera's technology, the company was
exposed to substantial legal and regulatory risks; (4) Natera
relied upon deceptive sales and billing practices to drive its
revenue growth; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects
lacked a reasonable basis.
WHAT CAN I DO?
Natera investors may, no later than June 27, 2022, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLPor other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Natera 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. 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
(484) 270-1453
info@ktmc.com [GN]
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Class Suit Wants Team to Drop New York from Name
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Rosenstein, writing for NJ Advance Media, reports that both
teams also have their practice facilities in New Jersey. The Giants
have the Quest Diagnostics Training Center next door to MetLife
Stadium while the Jets have the Atlantic Health Training Center in
Florham Park.
And that's the problem.
The New York Post reports a $6 billion class-action lawsuit against
the Jets, Giants and NFL "initially demanded both teams pack their
pads and leave the Garden State for the Big Apple. Now they're
making a slightly more manageable request -- the teams can stay in
New Jersey but must dump 'New York' from their names."
"MetLife Stadium is located in the swamps of East Rutherford, NJ .
. ., which has a population under 10,000, the 116th largest city in
New Jersey. It's not exactly an exciting and romantic
destination[,] and the Giants, Jets and MetLife Stadium have
absolutely no connection whatsoever with the city, county or state
of New York. . . . Plaintiffs Abdiell Suero and Maggie Wilkins
insist they were duped by false advertising and other fraudulent
deceptive practices into believing the Giants and Jets still played
in New York and shelled out some significant green to see Blue Blue
and Gang Green play at MetLife Stadium."
Before MetLife Stadium opened in 2010, both the Giants and Jets
called Giants Stadium home. The Giants have been in the Meadowlands
since 1976. The Jets joined them in 1984.
According to the Post, "The class-action case also seeks to
represent anyone who was tricked by the teams' marketing since 2016
into attending NFL games at the stadium." The attorney leading the
lawsuit is Evan Spencer.
"Not only isn't the Meadowlands in New York, it was the site of one
of the country's biggest garbage dumps for decades before
defendants' stadiums were built on top of it," wrote Spencer,
demanding the case move forward.
The Post reports "The NFL, Jets and Giants filed legal papers April
25 seeking to get the suit dismissed." In doing so, they claim the
"continued use of 'New York' as part of their team names is not
misleading at all -- it merely refers to the teams' hometown." The
defendants also noted "MetLife is a mere 7 miles from Manhattan --
which is well within the 75-mile radius covering the teams' NFL
territory rights that cover parts of New York, New Jersey and
Connecticut."
The Giants and Jets will resume the tradition of the Snoopy Bowl on
Aug. 28 in the final preseason game for both teams. [GN]
NATIONAL SPINE: Seeks to File Confidential Documents Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOMA CHIROPRACTIC, P.A.,
v. NATIONAL SPINE AND PAIN CENTERS LLC; SPINE CENTER OF
FLORIDA, LLC; AND PAIN MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA,
P.L., Case No. e 2:20-cv-00430-JLB-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants
ask the Court to enter an order granting leave to file certain
confidential documents under seal and to file redacted copies of
the exhibits on the public docket.
These documents are exhibits to Plaintiff Scoma's Motion for Class
Certification, filed on April 18, 2022. Consistent with the Local
Rules, Scoma notified NSPC of its intent to file these documents
under seal, and temporarily filed placeholder slip-sheets in place
of the documents in question.
This is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991. In support of its Motion, Scoma seeks to
file certain of NSPC’s confidential documents under seal, namely,
internal NSPC correspondence discussing marketing and referral
sources, and the deposition transcript of Dr. Eugene Mahaney, a
medical doctor at NSPC.
The parties entered into an Agreed Qualified Protective order which
was signed by the Court on February 12, 2021.
Pursuant to the Protective Order, NSPC has produced certain
confidential documents to Scoma, and those documents were so
labeled. NSPC has also designated certain limited portions of the
deposition transcripts from its employees and affiliates --
specifically, portions of the deposition transcript of Dr. Eugene
Mahaney -- as confidential.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 2, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wxHQLi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew L. Knowles, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Rodd, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
200 Clarendon Street, Floor 58
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 535-3885
E-mail: mknowles@mwe.com
erodd@mwe.com
- and -
Kamal H. Sleiman, Esq.
333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 4500
Miami, FL 33131-4336
Telephone: (305) 358-3500
E-mail: ksleiman@mwe.com
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Antitrust Suit in Various Courts
--------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2022, that it is
facing various antitrust class actions filed against the company
and other Class I railroads in various Federal district courts
regarding fuel surcharges were consolidated in the District of
Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation since
2007. In 2012, the court certified the case as a class action.
The defendant railroads appealed this certification, and the Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the District
Court's decision and remanded the case for further consideration.
On October 10, 2017, the District Court denied class certification.
The decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals on August 16, 2019.
Since that decision, various individual cases have been filed in
multiple jurisdictions and also consolidated in the District of
Columbia.
Norfolk Southern Corporation is a transportation company based in
Georgia.
ONTARIO: Class Action Members Have Until Aug. 6 to File Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Youth Confinement Class Action Settlement is open for
claims. Class members have until August 26, 2022 to make a claim.
Under the Settlement, class members may be entitled to compensation
of up to $1000 - $40,000 for each qualifying placement in youth
segregation at a youth justice facility between April 1, 2004 and
December 17, 2018.
If you think you might be eligible to make a claim, or if you know
someone who might be eligible, you can get more information by
visiting https://www.youthsegregationclassaction.ca/home.html. You
can also get more information by contacting the administrator by
email (info@youthsegregationclassaction.ca) or toll-free phone
(1-833-430-7538).
You can get assistance with your claim by contacting class counsel,
the lawyers for the class members, using the information below:
Koskie Minsky LLP
20 Queen St. West, Suite 900 Box 52
Toronto, ON
M5H 3R3
Email: youthconfinementclassaction@kmlaw.ca
Toll-Free Tel: 1-844-819-8501
Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP
1561 Ouellette Avenue
Windsor, ON
N8X 1K5
Email: youthconfinement@strosbergco.com
Toll-Free Tel: 1-866-229-5323, ext. 296 [GN]
ONTRAK INC: Faces Braun Shareholder Suit in California Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Ontrak, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 11, 2022, that in February 28, 2022, a purported
securities class action was filed in the Superior Court of
California for Los Angeles County, entitled "Braun v. Ontrak, Inc.,
et al.," Case No. 22STCV07174.
The plaintiff filed this action purportedly on behalf of a putative
class of all purchasers of the 9.50% Series A Cumulative Perpetual
Preferred Stock of Ontrak pursuant to Registration Statements and
Prospectuses issued in connection with Ontrak's August 21, 2020
initial public stock offering, its September 2020 through December
2020 "at market" offering, and its December 16, 2020 follow-on
stock offering. The plaintiff brings this action against the
company, its officers, namely Terren S. Peizer, Brandon H. LaVerne,
and Christopher Shirley; its board members: Richard A. Berman,
Sharon Gabrielson, Gustavo Giraldo, Katherine B. Quinn, Robert
Rebak, Diane Seloff, Michael Sherman and Edward Zecchini and the
investment banking firms that acted as underwriters for the
offerings namely B. Riley Securities, Inc., Ladenburg Thalmann &
Co., Inc., William Blair & Company, LLC, Aegis Capital Corp.,
Insperex LLC (formerly Incapital LLC), The Benchmark Company, LLC,
Boenning & Scatteredgood, Inc., Colliers Securities, LLC, Kingswood
Capital Markets, and ThinkEquity.
The plaintiff asserts violations of the Securities Act of 1933,
alleging that these filings failed to disclose and misrepresented
that Ontrak's relationships with two of its largest customers,
Aetna and Cigna, were materially impaired due to a lack of
confidence in Ontrak's value proposition and billing practices
Aetna had turned off the data feed of customer records to Ontrak by
May 2020, citing dissatisfaction with the company's value
proposition and billing practices and thus submitted a CAP which
Ontrak's senior executives were unable to effectively respond to
and the alleged failures in Ontrak's ability to ensure insurance
coverage and resulting billing problems affected all of its
relationships with large health insurance provider clients
weakening its business metrics and financial prospects. The
plaintiff seeks damages in an indeterminate amount. On April 4,
2022, the parties filed a joint stipulation extending defendants
time to respond to the initial complaint until May 6, 2022. On
April 6, 2022, the Court stayed the case pending an initial status
conference, which is scheduled for June 7, 2022 at 10:00 am. That
order stayed the entire case, including the May 6, 2022 response
deadline.
Ontrak, Inc. is an AI-powered and telehealth-enabled, virtualized
healthcare company with a technology-enabled platform that provides
claim based analytics and predictive modeling to provide analytic
insights throughout the delivery of personalized treatment
programs.
ONTRAK INC: Faces Yildrim Shareholder Suit in California Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ontrak, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 11, 2022, that in March 19, 2021, a lawsuit was
filed in the same court, entitled "Yildrim v. Ontrak, Inc.," Case
No. 2:21-cv-02460.
In July 14, 2021, the court consolidated said action with another
case. In August 13, 2021, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint. In the consolidated amended complaint, lead
plaintiff, purportedly on behalf of a putative class of purchasers
of Ontrak securities from August 5, 2020 through February 26, 2021,
alleges that the company and its board members Terren S. Peizer,
Brandon H. LaVerne and Curtis Medeiros, violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by intentionally or
recklessly making false and misleading statements and omissions in
various press releases, SEC filings and conference calls with
investors on August 5, 2020 and November 5, 2020. Specifically,
said complaint alleged that the company was inappropriately billing
its largest customer, Aetna, causing Aetna to, in May 2020, shut
off its data feed to Ontrak, and, in July 2020, require Ontrak to
complete a Corrective Action Plan (CAP).
Lead plaintiff alleges that defendants misrepresented to investors
that the data feed was shut off in July 2020, and that it was part
of Aetna's standard compliance review of all of its vendors, failed
to disclose to investors that Aetna had issued the CAP and failed
to disclose to investors that Ontrak was engaging in inappropriate
billing practices. Lead plaintiff seeks certification of a class
and monetary damages in an indeterminate amount.
In September 13, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss said
complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995. The motion is fully briefed and has been taken
under submission, with no oral argument.
Ontrak, Inc. is an AI-powered and telehealth-enabled, virtualized
healthcare company with a technology-enabled platform that provides
claim based analytics and predictive modeling to provide analytic
insights throughout the delivery of personalized treatment
programs.
ONTRAK INC: Farhar Shareholder Suit Ongoing in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Ontrak, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 11, 2022, that in March 3, 2021, a purported
securities class action was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, entitled "Farhar v.
Ontrak, Inc.," Case No. 2:21-cv-01987.
In July 14, 2021, the court consolidated said action with another
case. In August 13, 2021, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint. In the consolidated amended complaint, lead
plaintiff, purportedly on behalf of a putative class of purchasers
of Ontrak securities from August 5, 2020 through February 26, 2021,
alleges that the company and its board members Terren S. Peizer,
Brandon H. LaVerne and Curtis Medeiros, violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by intentionally or
recklessly making false and misleading statements and omissions in
various press releases, SEC filings and conference calls with
investors on August 5, 2020 and November 5, 2020. Specifically,
said complaint alleged that the company was inappropriately billing
its largest customer, Aetna, causing Aetna to, in May 2020, shut
off its data feed to Ontrak, and, in July 2020, require Ontrak to
complete a Corrective Action Plan (CAP).
Lead plaintiff alleges that defendants misrepresented to investors
that the data feed was shut off in July 2020, and that it was part
of Aetna's standard compliance review of all of its vendors, failed
to disclose to investors that Aetna had issued the CAP and failed
to disclose to investors that Ontrak was engaging in inappropriate
billing practices. Lead plaintiff seeks certification of a class
and monetary damages in an indeterminate amount.
In September 13, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss said
complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995. The motion is fully briefed and has been taken
under submission, with no oral argument.
Ontrak, Inc. is an AI-powered and telehealth-enabled, virtualized
healthcare company with a technology-enabled platform that provides
claim based analytics and predictive modeling to provide analytic
insights throughout the delivery of personalized treatment
programs.
OSCAR HEALTH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 11 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Did you lose money on investments in Oscar Health? If so, please
visit Oscar Health, Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or
contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com to
discuss your rights.
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Oscar Health, Inc. ("Oscar" or the "Company") (NYSE: OSCR)
pursuant to and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with the Company's March 2021 initial public offering
("IPO" or the "Offering"). The lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York and
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933.
Oscar is a health insurance company that claimed to be the first
such company "built around a full stack technology platform" which
will "allow [Oscar] to continue to innovate like a technology
company and not a traditional insurer."
In March 2021, Oscar conducted its IPO, selling 36,391,946 shares
of Class A common stock at a price of $39.00 per share. The Company
received net proceeds of approximately $1.3 billion from the
Offering which were purportedly to be used to repay in full
outstanding borrowings, including fees and expenses, under Oscar's
Term Loan Facility ($167 million), and the remainder proceeds were
to be used for general corporate purposes.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' statements in the Registration
Statement were materially false and misleading when made because:
(1) Oscar was experiencing growing COVID-19 testing and treatment
costs; (2) Oscar was experiencing growing net COVID costs; (3)
Oscar would be negatively impacted by an unfavorable prior year
Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) result relating to 2019 and
2020; and (4) Oscar was on track to be negatively impacted by
significant SEP membership growth.
On August 12, 2021, Oscar disclosed that the Company's Medical Loss
Ratio ("MLR") for the second quarter of 2021 was 82.4%, an increase
of 2170 basis points year-over year. The Company claimed that
"[t]he MLR increased to 82.4% in 2Q21 from 60.7% in 2Q20, primarily
driven by meaningfully lower utilization in 2Q20 as a result of
COVID-19, as well as higher COVID-19 testing and treatment costs
and a return to more normalized utilization in 2Q21." The Company
also disclosed that its net loss for the quarter was $73.1 million,
an increase of $32.1 million year-over-year.
On November 10, 2021, Oscar disclosed that its third quarter 2021
MLR increased 920 basis points year-over-year, to 99.7%. The
Company claimed that the MLR increase was "primarily driven by
higher net COVID costs as compared to the net benefit in 3Q20, an
unfavorable prior year Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV)
result, and the impact of significant SEP membership growth." The
Company also disclosed that its net loss for the quarter was $212.7
million, an increase of $133.6 million year-over-year.
Since the IPO, the price of Oscar Health's stock has fallen over
85%, closing as low as $5.72 per share on May 12, 2022.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 11, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired OSCR common stock, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
Oscar Health, Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact
Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information:
Peter Allocco
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(212) 951-2030
pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN]
OSCAR HEALTH: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of July 12 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on May 17 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Oscar Health, Inc. ("Oscar" or the
"Company") (NYSE: OSCR) 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 Oscar securities pursuant to
the Company's March 4, 2021 IPO (the "Class Period"). Investors
have until July 12, 2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as
lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
In March 2021, Oscar conducted its IPO, selling 36,391,946 shares
of Class A common stock at a price of $39.00 per share. The Company
received net proceeds of approximately $1.3 billion from the
Offering. The proceeds from the IPO were purportedly to be used to
repay in full outstanding borrowings, including fees and expenses,
under Oscar's Term Loan Facility ($167 million), and the remainder
proceeds were to be used for general corporate purposes.
On August 12, 2021, Oscar disclosed that the Company's Medical Loss
Ratio ("MLR") for the second quarter of 2021 was 82.4%, an increase
of 2170 basis points year-over year. The Company claimed that
"[t]he MLR increased to 82.4% in 2Q21 from 60.7% in 2Q20, primarily
driven by meaningfully lower utilization in 2Q20 as a result of
COVID-19, as well as higher COVID-19 testing and treatment costs
and a return to more normalized utilization in 2Q21." The Company
also disclosed that its net loss for the quarter was $73.1 million,
an increase of $32.1 million year-over-year.
Then, on November 10, 2021, Oscar disclosed that its third quarter
2021 MLR increased 920 basis points year-over-year, to 99.7%. The
Company claimed that the MLR increase was "primarily driven by
higher net COVID costs as compared to the net benefit in 3Q20, an
unfavorable prior year Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV)
result, and the impact of significant SEP membership growth." The
Company also disclosed that its net loss for the quarter was $212.7
million, an increase of $133.6 million year-over-year.
During a conference call held the same day, Scott Blackley, the
Company's Chief Financial Officer, stated: "We recognized
approximately $20 million of risk adjustment expense this quarter
related to our risk adjustment data validation audit or RADV
results. The RADV exercise is atypical this year due to COVID. It
spans two years, 2019 and 2020. The majority of the RADV headwinds
relate to the 2019 audit results, which were recently completed."
On this news, Oscar's share price fell $4.05 per share, or 24.5%,
to close at 12.47 per share on November 11, 2021.
By the commencement of this action, Oscar stock has traded as low
as $5.76 per share, a more than 85% decline from the $39.00 per
share IPO price.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the
Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and
omitted to state: (1) that Oscar was experiencing growing COVID-19
testing and treatment costs; (2) that Oscar was experiencing
growing net COVID costs; (3) that Oscar would be negatively
impacted by an unfavorable prior year Risk Adjustment Data
Validation (RADV) result relating to 2019 and 2020; (4) that Oscar
was on track to be negatively impacted by significant SEP
membership growth; 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 Oscar 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 Melissa Fortunato 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.
Contacts
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
OSCAR HEALTH: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 11 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Oscar Health, Inc. ("Oscar"
or the "Company") (NYSE: OSCR) and certain of its officers, on
behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Oscar
Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with the Company's March 2021
initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering"). Such investors
are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/oscr.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933.
The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was
materially false and misleading and omitted to state: (1) that
Oscar was experiencing growing COVID-19 testing and treatment
costs; (2) that Oscar was experiencing growing net COVID costs; (3)
that Oscar would be negatively impacted by an unfavorable prior
year Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) result relating to 2019
and 2020; (4) that Oscar was on track to be negatively impacted by
significant SEP membership growth; 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.
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/oscr 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
Oscar you have until July 11, 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.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
OSCAR HEALTH: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 11 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com)
informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed against Oscar Health, Inc. (Oscar) (NYSE: OSCR). The action
charges Oscar 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
Oscar's materially misleading statements to the public, Oscar
investors have suffered significant losses.
YOU CAN CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK OR COPY AND PASTE IN YOUR
BROWSER:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/oscar-health-inc?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=oscar_health&utm_campaign=oscr&mktm=r
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: JULY 11, 2022
CLASS PERIOD: PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE TO OSCAR'S MARCH 2021 IPO
THROUGH MAY 12, 2022
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
OSCAR'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
In March, 2021, Oscar conducted its IPO, selling 36,391,946 shares
of Class A common stock at a price of $39.00 per share. Oscar
received net proceeds of approximately $1.3 billion from the IPO.
On August 12, 2021, Oscar disclosed that its Medical Loss Ratio
(MLR) for the second quarter of 2021 was 82.4%, an increase of 2170
basis points year-over year, claiming that the increase was
primarily driven by meaningfully lower utilization in 2Q20 as a
result of COVID-19, as well as higher COVID-19 testing and
treatment costs. Oscar also disclosed that its net loss for the
quarter was $73.1 million, an increase of $32.1 million
year-over-year.
Then, on November 10, 2021, Oscar disclosed that its third quarter
2021 MLR increased 920 basis points year-over-year, to 99.7%. Oscar
claimed, again, that the MLR increase was primarily driven by
higher net COVID costs, as well as several other purported reasons.
Oscar also disclosed that its net loss for the quarter was $212.7
million, an increase of $133.6 million year-over-year.
Following this news, Oscar's share price fell $4.05 per share, or
24.5%, to close at $12.47 per share on November 11, 2021. At the
time of the filing of the complaint, Oscar stock has traded as low
as $5.76 per share, a more than 85% decline from the $39.00 per
share IPO price.
WHAT CAN I DO?
Oscar investors may, no later than July 11, 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 Oscar 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. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. [GN]
PDS BIOTECHNOLOGY: Rosener Files Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
PDS Biotechnology Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 11, 2022, that in February 22, 2022, the
plaintiffs in a putative class action and shareholder derivative
complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal in said court.
In July 23, 2021, David R. Rosener, a purported stockholder of the
company, filed a putative class action and shareholder derivative
complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (C.A.
No. 2021-0644 JRS) against the company and all of its directors and
certain of its executive officers.
The plaintiff named all current directors of PDS as defendants as
well as PDS's Chief Scientific Officer and PDS's Chief Medical
Officer and also named PDS as a nominal defendant. The plaintiff
claimed PDS's bylaws required tabulation of broker non-votes on
Proposal 3 at the company's 2021 annual stockholder meeting held on
June 17, 2021 which sought shareholder approval of the Second
Amended and Restated PDS Biotechnology Corporation 2014 Equity
Incentive Plan.
The complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duties,
declaratory judgment, waste of corporate assets and unjust
enrichment in connection with the Restated Plan and the granting of
an aggregate of 1,040,700 stock options to certain executive
officers pursuant to the Restated Plan. The plaintiff sought
unspecified monetary damages, to have the Restated Plan declared
void, and rescission of the grant of stock options as ultra vires.
At the Special Meeting of Stockholders held on January 19, 2022,
the requisite stockholders of the Company voted to ratify the prior
approval of the Restated Plan which was adopted at the 2021 Annual
Meeting and the stock options issued under the Restated Plan.
Thereafter, on February 22, 2022, the plaintiff filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.
PDS Biotechnology Corporation is a clinical-stage immunotherapy
company developing a growing pipeline of cancer immunotherapies and
infectious disease vaccines designed to overcome the limitations of
current immunotherapy and vaccine technologies.
PERATON INC: Hicks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peraton, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Oscar Brooks, on behalf of himself and all
others, similarly situated v. Peraton, Inc. a Maryland Corporation;
Peraton Risk Decidion, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Does 1-50;
Case No. 34-2022-00319674-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty., May 11, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Peraton -- https://www.peraton.com/ -- is a privately held American
technology company formed in 2017, with areas of service including
space, intelligence, cybersecurity, defense, homeland security, and
health.[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
- and -
Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq.
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
1901 Avenue Of The Stars, Ste. 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006
Phone: 818-456-6168
Email: josh@falakassalaw.com
PERMANENT GENERAL: Lancaster Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Permanent General
Assurance Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Matthew K.
Lancaster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Permanent General Assurance Corporation, Does 1-100,
Case No. 34-2022-00319644-CU-BC-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty., May 11, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Breach of Contract/Warranty - Civil
Unlimited."
Permanent General Assurance Corporation of Ohio --
http://www.thegeneral.com/-- operates as an insurance company. The
Company offers automobile insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart C Talley, Esq.
KERSHAW, COOK & TALLEY PC
401 Watt Ave.
Sacramento, CA 95864
Phone: 916-779-7000
Fax: 916-721-2501
Email: stuart@kctlegal.com
PINEAPPLE HOSPITALITY: Redick Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pineapple Hospitality
Company, et al. The case is styled as Crystal Redick, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pineapple
Hospitality Company doing business as: Staypineapple, Does 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-02964-SVW-AGR (C.D. Cal., May 3,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Pineapple Hospitality Company doing business as Staypineapple --
https://www.staypineapple.com/ -- offers a unique collection of
boutique hotels for unforgettable getaways.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com
PLAINS ALL: Settles Oil Spill Class Action in Calif. for $230-MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press reports that the owner of an oil pipeline that
spewed thousands of barrels of crude oil onto Southern California
beaches in 2015 has agreed to pay $230 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit brought by fishermen and property owners,
court documents show.
Houston-based Plains All American Pipeline agreed to pay $184
million to fishermen and fish processors and $46 million to coastal
property owners in the settlement reached on May 13, according to
court documents.
The company didn't admit liability in the agreement, which follows
seven years of legal wrangling. The agreement still must undergo a
public comment period and needs federal court approval. A hearing
on the matter is scheduled for June 10.
"This settlement should serve as a reminder that pollution just
can't be a cost of doing business, and that corporations will be
held accountable for environmental damage they cause," said Matthew
Preusch, one of the attorneys who represented the plaintiffs.
Plains All American Pipeline officials didn't immediately return a
message from The Associated Press seeking comment.
On May 19, 2015, oil gushed from a corroded pipeline north of
Refugio State Beach in Santa Barbara County, northwest of Los
Angeles, spreading along the coasts of Santa Barbara, Ventura and
Los Angeles counties.
It was the worst California coastal oil spill since 1969 and it
blackened popular beaches for miles, killing or fouling hundred of
seabirds, seals and other wildlife and hurting tourism and
fishing.
A federal investigation said 123,000 gallons spilled, but other
estimates by experts in liquids mechanics were as high as 630,000
gallons.
Federal inspectors found that Plains had made several preventable
errors, failed to quickly detect the pipeline rupture and responded
too slowly as oil flowed toward the ocean.
Plains operators working from a Texas control room more than 1,000
miles (1,600 kilometers) away had turned off an alarm that would
have signaled a leak and, unaware a spill had occurred, restarted
the hemorrhaging line after it had shut down, which only made
matters worse, inspectors found.
Plains apologized for the spill and paid for the cleanup. The
company's 2017 annual report estimated costs from the spill at $335
million, not including lost revenue. The company also revised its
plans for dealing with onshore pipeline spills.
In 2020, Plains agreed to pay $60 million to the federal government
to settle allegations that it violated safety laws. It also agreed
to bring its nationwide pipeline system into compliance with
federal safety laws.
The spill crippled the local oil business because the pipeline was
used to transport crude to refineries from seven offshore rigs,
including three owned by Exxon Mobil, that have been idle since the
spill.
Plains has applied for permission to build a new pipeline but it is
facing an uphill battle.
The emerging debate is playing out amid the global climate crisis
and as California moves toward banning gas-powered vehicles and oil
drilling, while record gas prices have left consumers with sticker
shock at the pumps.
A complex environmental review of the pipeline plan is not expected
until October. [GN]
PLAN BENEFIT: Wasow LLP & Berzon LLP Named as Class Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HERIBERTO CHAVEZ;
EVANGELINA ESCARCEGA, AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF JOSE
ESCARCEGA; AND JORGE MORENO, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. PLAN BENEFIT SERVICES, INC; FRINGE INSURANCE
BENEFITS, INC.; AND FRINGE BENEFIT GROUP, Case No. 1:17-cv-00659-LY
(W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Lee Yeakel entered an order appointing
Nina Wasow, Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman, & Wasow LLP, and Altshuler
Berzon LLP as class counsel for the subclasses of persons defined
pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On April 26, 2022, the court conducted a Conference after Class
Certification at which all parties attended. During the conference,
Nina Wasow of Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman, & Wasow LLP moved on
behalf of Plaintiffs to amend the Class-Certification Order so as
to appoint not only herself but also her firm and co-counsel,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, as class counsel.
The Defendants did not oppose the motion. The motion is therefore
granted. Accordingly, the Class-Certification Order is amended, the
Court says.
Plan Benefit provides consulting, management and brokerage
services. The Company offers employee benefits, and retiree
benefits.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NeRwkt at no extra charge.[CC]
PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of June 7 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming June 7, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who: (1) purchased
Playstudios, Inc. ("Playstudios" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MYPS )
securities between June 22, 2021 and March 1, 2022, inclusive (the
"Class Period").; (2) held common stock of Acies Acquisition Corp.
("Acies") as of May 25, 2021, and were eligible to vote at Acies'
June 16, 2021 special meeting; or (3) purchased Playstudios common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Acies' Registration
Statement and Proxy Statement issued in connection with the June
2021 merger.
If you suffered a loss on your Playstudios 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/playstudios-inc/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.
In June 2021, Playstudios became a public entity via merger with
Acies, a special purpose acquisition company. On August 11, 2021,
Playstudios released its second quarter financial results and
revealed that its anticipated new game, Kingdom Boss, was being
delayed until later in the year and that investors should expect
decreased revenue and profits during the year as a result.
On this news, Playstudios' stock fell $0.66, or 13%, to close at
$5.09 per share on August 12, 2021, thereby injuring investors.
Then, on February 24, 2022, Playstudios released its annual report,
summarizing disappointing financial results for the fourth quarter
and full year 2021.
On this news, Playstudios' stock fell $0.24, or 5%, to close at
$4.86 per share on February 25, 2022, thereby injuring investors
further.
Then, on February 26, 2022, Playstudios announced that Kingdom Boss
was indefinitely suspended.
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 it was having significant problems with Kingdom Boss, would
not be releasing Kingdom Boss as expected, and had not revised its
financial projections to account for the issues with Kingdom Boss,
and as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Playstudios securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than June
7, 2022 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]
PORK KING GOOD: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pork King Good. The
case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Pork King Good, Case No. 1:22-cv-03894
(S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Pork King Good -- https://porkkinggood.com/ -- is a proudly quirky
pork rind company committed to providing the best low carb snack
foods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
PROFESSIONAL HEALTH: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Health
and Nutrition, Inc. The case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Professional
Health and Nutrition, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03889 (S.D.N.Y., May
12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Professional Health and Nutrition, Inc. is a domestic profit
corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
PROGRESSIVE GULF: Vantree Files Suit in N.D. Mississippi
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Gulf
Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Betty Vantree,
Cynthia Rayborn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Progressive Gulf Insurance Company, Mountain Laurel
Assurance Company, Case No. 4:22-cv-00070-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss., May
12, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. -- http://www.progressive.com/
-- provides property and casualty insurance company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas M. Flanagan, Jr., Esq.
THOMAS M. FLANAGAN, JR.
P O Box 1081
202 W. Market St.
Greenwood, MS 38935
Phone: (662) 453-6626
Fax: (662) 453-2777
Email: tomflanagan@bellsouth.net
PROVIDENT BANK: Collins Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Judy Collins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. PROVIDENT BANK, Case No. HUD-L-001429-22 (N.J. Super.
Ct., Hudson Cty., May 2, 2022), is brought against the Defendant
arising from its routine practice of assessing an overdraft fee
("OD Fee") on transactions that did not actually overdraw checking
accounts.
The Defendant's customers have been injured by the Bank's improper
practices to the tune of millions of dollars bilked from their
accounts in violation the Defendant's clear contractual
commitments. The Plaintiff seeks to end the Defendant's abusive and
predatory practices and force it to refund all of these improper
charges. The Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of contract,
including breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
and seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Allentown, Pennsylvania
and has a checking account with Provident Bank.
Provident Bank is engaged in the business of providing retail
banking
services to consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC
570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: (973) 623-3000
Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
Email: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com
PURE BLISS ORGANICS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pure Bliss Organics,
Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Pure Bliss Organics, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-03949 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Pure Bliss Organics -- https://pureblissorganics.myshopify.com/ --
has been making Paleo, traditional, and no sugar granola, real food
bars and snack bites, and gourmet nut blends.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
QUALCOMM INC: Faces Consumer Class Actions in California
--------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended March 27, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2022, that since January 18,
2017, a number of consumer class action complaints have been filed
against the company in the United States District Courts for the
Southern and Northern Districts of California, each on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of cellular phones and other cellular
devices. In April 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred the cases that had been filed in the
Southern District of California to the Northern District of
California.
On July 11, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging that the company violated California and federal
antitrust and unfair competition laws by, among other things,
refusing to license standard-essential patents to our competitors,
conditioning the supply of certain of our baseband chipsets on the
purchaser first agreeing to license our entire patent portfolio,
entering into exclusive deals with companies, including Apple Inc.,
and charging unreasonably high royalties that do not comply with
the commitments to standard setting organizations.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and disgorgement and/or
restitution, as well as an order that the company be enjoined from
further unlawful conduct. On August 11, 2017, the company filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On November
10, 2017, the court denied the motion, except to the extent that
certain claims seek damages under the Sherman Antitrust Act. On
July 5, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and on September 27, 2018, the court granted that
motion.
On January 23, 2019, the Ninth Circuit granted the company
permission to appeal the court's class certification order, and on
January 24, 2019, the court stayed the case pending the appeal. On
December 2, 2019, a hearing on the company's appeal of the class
certification order was held before the Ninth Circuit, and on
September 29, 2021, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's
class certification order, ruling that the court had failed to
correctly assess the propriety of applying California law to a
nationwide class.
The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court and
instructed the court to consider the effect of United States
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. QUALCOMM Incorporated (which the
Ninth Circuit decided in favor of Qualcomm in August 2020) on this
case.
QUALCOMM Incorporated is into radio & TV broadcasting &
communications equipment based in California.
QUANTUM INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of July 5 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Arqit Quantum Inc. (NASDAQ: ARQQ) investors and
Centricus Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: CENH, CENHU, CENHW) investors
with significant losses to submit your losses now.
Class Period: Sept. 7, 2021 - Apr. 18, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 5, 2022
Visit: https://www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/ARQQ
Contact An Attorney Now:
ARQQ@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
Arqit Quantum Inc. (ARQQ) Class Action:
The complaint alleges Defendants made false or misleading
statements or failed to disclose: (1) Arqit's proposed encryption
technology would require widespread adoption of new protocols and
standards for telecommunications; (2) British cybersecurity
officials questioned the viability of Arqit's proposed encryption
technology in a meeting held in 2020; (3) the British government
was not a customer of Arqit and only provided grants to the
company; and, (4) Arqit had little more than an early-stage
prototype of its encryption system at the time of its SPAC merger.
The truth emerged on Apr. 18, 2022, when The Wall Street Journal
reported that "British cybersecurity officials questioned the
viability of Arqit's proposed approach to encryption technology in
a high-level evaluation they privately shared with the company in
the summer of 2020, according to people familiar with the matter."
The WSJ also reported that Arqit's proposal is a well-known
1980s-era technology with limited real-world application, requires
broad adoption of new telecommunications, cloud, and internet
protocols and standards that aren't widely supported, and its
customer list includes a number of British government agencies who
merely provided research grants and not contracts to purchase
Arqit's encryption product.
On this news, the price of Arqit shares fell 17%, wiping out over
$300 million in market capitalization in a single trading day.
"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Arqit
misrepresented the status of- and commercial prospects for- its
encryption system," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner
leading the investigation.
If you invested in Arqit and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Arqit
should consider their options to help in the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or
email ARQQ@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or
follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw.
Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN]
QUINSTREET INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Robocalls
---------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that QuinStreet,
Inc. faces a proposed class action over its alleged practice of
placing automated calls to consumers' cell phones without first
securing their consent to be contacted.
QuinStreet operates AmOne.com, a website that purports to provide
quotes for consumer loans, the 18-page case relays. The suit
alleges, however, that the defendant is not a lender but a
marketing company who harvests and then sells consumers' contact
information to lenders and receives referral fees in return.
The lawsuit claims that consumers who provide their phone numbers
through AmOne.com's "See My Rates" form are not shown any loan
"rates" on the defendant's website but instead receive prerecorded
calls from QuinStreet in an effort to market itself and its
clients.
According to the case, the defendant has violated the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by placing automated
telemarketing calls to consumers' cell phones without first
securing their prior express consent to do so.
The plaintiff, a Westchester County, New York resident, claims to
have been "one such target of Defendant's unsolicited robocalls."
Per the suit, QuinStreet caused a prerecorded call to be placed to
the plaintiff's cell phone around November 13, 2021. Messages left
by the defendant identified the caller as "Amone" and claimed that
the caller would like to "help" with the plaintiff's "financial
situation," the case relays.
According to the lawsuit, other consumers have received from the
defendant similar prerecorded messages, purporting to be from AmOne
or GuideToLenders.
The lawsuit alleges that QuinStreet collects consumers' phone
numbers through AmOne.com "under false pretense." Per the case, a
site visitor interested in a loan is told that the "[l]ast step to
get your quotes" is to enter a phone number and click "See My
Rates." The suit alleges QuinStreet "obscures its intention" to
place prerecorded messages to the numbers it receives through the
form by including a "barely readable" disclosure under the "See My
Rates" button that is designed to be inconspicuous.
Moreover, the lawsuit says that although the disclosure contains a
hyperlink to the defendant's terms of use, which contains an
arbitration agreement, this notice is not "reasonably conspicuous"
and thus cannot bind users to arbitration.
The lawsuit looks to cover anyone in the U.S. to whom, within the
past four years, QuinStreet placed a call using a prerecorded or
artificial voice message regarding property, goods or services.
[GN]
R&R RESTAURANTS: Hollis' Conditional Status Bid Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZOE HOLLIS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. R & R
RESTAURANTS, INC dba SASSY'S, an Oregon corporation; STACY MAYHOOD,
an individual; IAN HANNIGAN, an individual; FRANK FAILLACE, an
individual; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-00965-YY (D.
Or.), the Hon. Judge Youlee Yim You entered an order:
1. granting in part the plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification;
2. denying the implementation of plaintiff's proposed order
and use of the proposed notice and instead directing the
parties to confer and finalize a notice and proposed order
that is (1) in accordance with this opinion and (2)
distributed by a mutually agreed-upon third-party claims
administrator.
The Plaintiff Hollis brings this putative collective action against
defendants, alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).
The Plaintiff alleges defendants employed her and all other dancers
at Sassy's as independent contractors. The Defendants allegedly
exercised a great deal of control over the dancers' performances.
The Plaintiff and her fellow dancers were required to perform stage
dances as part of their work at the club. The Defendants also
required dancers to complete their entire shift on their scheduled
workdays; performers who wished to leave early during a shift were
subject to discipline by club management.
The Defendants are operators, representatives, or managers at
Sassy’s, a club located in Portland, Oregon. The Plaintiff
performed at Sassy's from 2017 to February 2019.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wy12Zw at no extra charge.[CC]
RAINBOW APPAREL: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rainbow Apparel
Distribution Center, Corp. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Rainbow
Apparel Distribution Center, Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-02817
(E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Rainbow Apparel Distribution Center, Corp. was founded in 1981. The
Company's line of business includes retail sale of women's
clothing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
RANK & STYLE: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rank & Style, Inc.
The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Rank & Style, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03928 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Rank & Style -- https://www.rankandstyle.com/ -- is the only
resource that uses consumer and industry data to help people shop
the best products online.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
RECKITT BENCKISER: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Sterling Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS
POLICE & FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated,, v. RECKITT BENCKISER GROUP PLC, RAKESH
KAPOOR, and SHAUN THAXTER, Case No. 1:20-cv-10041-PKC (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge P. Kevin Castel entered a civil case management plan
and scheduling order as follows:
-- All fact discovery shall be completed Jan. 20, 2023
no later than:
-- All expert discovery shall be March 31, 2023
completed no later than:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their Oct. 28, 2022
motion for class certification by:
-- The Defendants shall file their Dec. 19, 2022
opposition to Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification by:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their Jan. 27, 2023.
reply in support of their motion
for class certification by:
-- The Parties' document productions Aug. 29, 2022.
shall be substantially completed by:
-- Privilege logs shall be produced by: Sept. 29, 2022
Reckitt is a British multinational consumer goods company
headquartered in Slough, England. It is a producer of health,
hygiene and nutrition products.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sEC1ux at no extra charge.[CC]
REGUS MANAGEMENT: Hilton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regus Management
Group, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Michelle Hilton,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Regus Management Group, LLC, Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2022-00319657-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May
11, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Regus Management Group, LLC -- https://www.regus.com/ -- was
founded in 2004. The Company's line of business includes providing
management services on a contract and fee basis.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory Mauro, Esq.
THE MAURO LAW FIRM APLC
790 E Colorado Blvd., Fl. 9
Pasadena, CA 91101-2193
Phone: 626-698-0048
Fax: 626-698-0049
Email: greg@maurolawfirm.net
RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Nov. 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ford v. Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, Case No. 1:20-cv-00470 (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Christian F. Hummel entered an order setting scheduling order
deadlines as follows:
-- Class Certification Motion due by: Nov. 1, 2022
-- The Plaintiffs Expert Disclosure Aug. 1, 2022
Deadline is:
-- The Defendants Expert Disclosure Sept. 15, 2022
Deadline is:
-- Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Oct. 31, 2022
Deadline is:
The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute is a private research university
in Troy, New York, with additional campuses in Hartford and Groton,
Connecticut.[CC]
RISKIFIED LTD: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 1 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Riskified Ltd. (NYSE: RSKD)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on
or about July 28, 2021 (the "IPO" or "Offering"), of the important
July 1, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Riskified securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the IPO 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 Riskified class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5896 or 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 July 1, 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 handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen
that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate
the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm
represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its
practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative
litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities
class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the IPO Registration
Statement was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained
untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not
prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing
their preparation. Specifically, the IPO Registration Statement
made inaccurate statements of material fact because they failed to
disclose the following adverse facts that existed at the time of
the IPO: (1) as Riskified expanded its user base, the quality of
Riskified's machine learning platform had deteriorated (rather than
improved as represented in the Registration Statement), because of,
among other things, inaccuracies in the algorithms associated with
onboarding new merchants and entering new geographies and
industries; (2) Riskified had expanded its customer base into
industries with relatively high rates of fraud - including
partnerships with cryptocurrency and remittance business - in which
Riskified had limited experience and that this expansion has
negatively impacted the effectiveness of Riskified's machine
learning platform; (3) as a result, Riskified was suffering from
materially higher chargebacks and cost of revenue and depressed
gross profits and gross profit margins during its third fiscal
quarter of 2021; and (4) thus, the Registration Statement's
representations regarding Riskified's historical financial and
operational metrics and purported market opportunities did not
accurately reflect the actual business, operations, and financial
results and trajectory of Riskified prior to and at the time of the
IPO, and were materially false and misleading, and lacked a factual
basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.
To join the Riskified class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5896 or 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]
ROBLOX CORPORATION: Faces Matlick Shareholder Suit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roblox Corporation disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 11, 2022, that in March 9, 2022, an
alleged shareholder filed a putative securities class action
against the company and certain of its executives and directors,
alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the registration
statement for the company's direct listing.
The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, County
of San Mateo, and is captioned "Matlick v. Roblox Corporation, et
al.," Case No. 22-CIV-01038. The complaint seeks damages and
attorneys' fees, as well as other relief.
Roblox Corporation operates a human co-experience platform where
users interact with each other to explore and develop immersive,
user generated, 3D experiences.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Consumer Suit Targets Defective Refrigerators
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan j. Farrick at legalreader.com reports that the plaintiffs
claim that certain double-door Samsung refrigerators do not keep
food cool.
Samsung is facing a class action filed by consumers who claim the
electronic company's refrigerators do not keep their food cold
enough.
According to CBS News, lawsuit was filed by attorneys for Samsung
refrigerator owners Matthew Jordan and Lisa Saghy, who accuse
Samsung of unjust enrichment and deception by selling products that
do not fulfill marketing promises.
The complaint, adds CBS, was submitted in New Jersey, where the
South Korean company's U.S. operations are based.
The lawsuit takes specific issue with a line of double-door Samsung
refrigerators with bottom-side freezers. Each unit ranges in price
from $1,000 to $3,000 and are backed by 1-year warranties.
However, the lawsuit suggests that Samsung's double-door
refrigerators do not adequately cool and preserve food.
"They run above the temperature at which food can be safely
stored," the lawsuit states. "This defect is fatal to the operation
of the refrigerators, which serve one purpose: keeping food and
other consumable goods at a safe temperature."
While Samsung declined to comment on the specifics of the filing,
the company insisted that its biggest priority is customer
satisfaction and safety.
"Our commitment to ensuring product quality and safety for all of
our customers is our top priority," Samsung told CBS MoneyWatch in
a statement.
Jordan, adds CBS, is a California resident. He purchased a Samsung
refrigerator for $1,300 in June 2020.
A Samsung refrigerator. Representational image only. Image via
Flickr/user:Goedeker's. (CCA-BY-2.0). (source location:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/goedekers/15659436233/).
Shortly after his purchase, Jordan noticed that the temperature
inside the refrigerator was inconsistent and seemed to constantly
fluctuate. Using a thermal-imaging camera, Jordan found that the
internal temperature was 45 degrees near the top of the unit and 29
degrees near the bottom.
Saghy, from Pennsylvania, bought her Samsung refrigerator in 2020.
When Saghy observed that her $2,250 refrigerator was not keeping
food adequately chilled, she called a technician-only for the
serviceperson to tell her that the unit had a defect, could not be
repaired, and must be replaced.
Despite the technician's claims, Saghy claims that Samsung has
known about the problems with its refrigerators for years but made
little to no effort to fix them.
Between 2019 and 2021, for instance, consumers across the United
States submitted more than 600 Samsung refrigerator-related
complaints to the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission.
WRTV-ABC notes that the lawsuit is separate from a Facebook-based
organization, Samsung Refrigerator Recall USA Now.
The group has spent years demanding that that the federal
government order a mass recall of Samsung refrigerators known or
suspected to be defective.
Tom O'Shea, one of the group's moderators, told WRTV-ABC that
refrigerators that do not properly preserve food pose a public
safety risk.
"Nobody is stepping in, nobody," O'Shea said. "People are getting
sick. Medicines are going bad. Breast milk is going bad, and food
is going bad."
"It's disgusting, that's what I say," O'Shea said, recommending
that other Samsung customers document every conversation and
repair. "We are the cheerleaders: it's your money, get your
money."[GN]
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Dunsmore Seeks Provisional Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRYL DUNSMORE, ERNEST
ARCHULETA, ANTHONY EDWARDS, REANNA LEVY, JOSUE LOPEZ, CHRISTOPHER
NELSON, CHRISTOPHER NORWOOD, and LAURA ZOERNER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE
PARTNERS, INC., LIBERTY HEALTHCARE, INC., MID-AMERICA HEALTH, INC.,
LOGAN HAAK, M.D., INC., SAN DIEGO CoUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, and
DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-WVG (S.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for a preliminary
injunction and for provisional class certification.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 2, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MoHb5v at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Esq.
Van Swearingen, Esq.
Priyah Kaul, Esq.
Eric Monek Anderson, Esq.
Hannah M. Chartoff, Esq.
ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-1738
Telephone: (415) 433-6830
Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
E-mail: ggrunfeld@rbgg.com
vswearingen@rbgg.com
pkaul@rbgg.com
eanderson@rbgg.com
hchartoff@rbgg.com
- and -
Aaron J. Fischer, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF AARON J. FISCHER
2001 Addison Street, Suite 300
Berkeley, CA 94704-1165
Telephone: (510) 806-7366
Facsimile: (510) 694-6314
E-mail: ajf@aaronfischerlaw.com
- and -
Christopher M. Young, Esq.
Isabella Neal, Esq.
Oliver Kiefer, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
401 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101-4297
Telephone: (619) 699-2700
Facsimile: (619) 699-2701
E-mail: christopher.young@dlapiper.com
isabella.neal@dlapiper.com
oliver.kiefer@dlapiper.com
- and -
Bardis Vakili, Esq.
Jonathan Markovitz, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO &
IMPERIAL COUNTIES
2760 Fifth Avenue, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92103-6330
Telephone: (619) 232-2121
E-mail: bvakili@aclusandiego.org
jmarkovitz@aclusandiego.org
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Fleming, et al., File Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fleming, et al., v. Select
Portfolio Servicing, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-12092-PBS (D. Mass.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class,
defined as follows:
A "failure to strictly comply with the default acceleration
notice class" consisting of:
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class of
foreclosed homeowners:
(i) Massachusetts residents;
(ii) Whose Massachusetts properties were foreclosed on
pursuant to mortgages that contained the following or a
materially similar paragraph:
"22. Acceleration; Remedies. Lender shall give notice
to Borrower prior to acceleration following Borrower’s
breach of any covenant or agreement in this Security
Instrument…The notice shall specify: (a) the default;
(b) the action required to cure the default; (c) a
date, not less than 30 days from the date the notice is
given to Borrower, by which the default must be cured;
and (d) that failure to cure the default on or before
the date specified in the notice may result in
acceleration of the sums secured by this Security
Instrument and sale of the Property. The notice shall
further inform Borrower of the right to reinstate after
acceleration and the right to bring a court action to
assert the non-existence of a default or any other
defense of Borrower to acceleration and sale. If the
default is not cured on or before the date specified in
the notice, Lender at its option may require immediate
payment in full of all sums secured by this Security
Instrument without further demand and may invoke the
STATUTORY POWER OF SALE and any other remedies
permitted by Applicable Law. Lender shall be entitled
to collect all expenses incurred in pursuing the
remedies provided in this Section 22, including, but
not limited to, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of
title evidence;
(iii) Who, prior to foreclosure, were sent notices by Select
Portfolio Servicing pursuant to said paragraph entitled
"90 Day Right to Cure" or "150-Day Right to Cure", that
failed to state that the mortgagor had a "right to
reinstate the mortgage after acceleration" and/or a
"right to bring a court action;" and
(iv) Who were sent separately dated untitled letters that
stated that the mortgagor had a "right to reinstate the
mortgage after acceleration and commencement of
foreclosure proceedings."
The Plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of themselves and the
"failure to strictly comply with the default acceleration notice
class" to seek relief for Defendants’ practices in sending
default/ acceleration form notices that fail to strictly comply
with the terms of the mortgages in violation of c. 183 section 21
by failing to include their "right to reinstate after acceleration"
and right to bring a court action to assert the non-existence of a
default or any other defense of Borrower to acceleration and sale"
in the same clearly worded and laid out notice as contemplated by
the mortgage.
The Plaintiffs also bring this action on behalf of themselves and
the "good faith and reasonable diligence class" for the Defendants'
practices of failing to ascertain the fair market value of their
properties prior to foreclosure in order to adhere to their duty in
obtaining the best possible and commercially reasonable price for
the properties at foreclosure.
The Plaintifffs include KELLI FLEMING & PHILIP FLEMING, BETSY ANNE
GOSSELIN, JOSEPH T. PAPPALARDO, ALAN PETTWAY, PETER M. SQUIRES &
ERIN K. SQUIRES, JARED MORGAN, DONNA M. PRIOLI & PAUL S. PRIOLI,
MELISSA FEMINO & PAUL FEMINO On behalf of themselves and all others
so similarly situated.
The Defendants include SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING and DEUTSCHE BANK
NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE, ON BEHALF OF THE
HOLDERS OF THE ACCREDITED MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2005-4 ASSET BACKED
NOTES; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE, IN TRUST
FOR REGISTERED HOLDERS OF LONG BEACH MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-1,
ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-1; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR LONG BEACH MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST
2006-WL2; U.S. BANK NA, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO BANK OF AMERICA, NA,
SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO LASALLE BANK NA, ON BEHALF OF THE
REGISTERED HOLDERS OF BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES I LLC,
ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-AQ2; U.S. BANK, SUCCESSOR
TRUSTEE TO LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ON BEHALF OF THE
HOLDERS OF BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES I TRUST 2006-HE2,
ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-HE2 U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE, FOR THE CIM TRUST 2016-3,
MORTGAGE-BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2016-3; WILMINGTON TRUST, NA,
SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO CITIBANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR BEAR STEARNS
ALT-A TRUST 2006-4. MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES
2006-4; and DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE ON
BEHALF OF THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF THE HIS ASSET SECURITIZATION
CORPORATION TRUST 2007-NC1 TRUST, MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-NC1.
Select Portfolio is a loan servicing company founded in 1989 as
Fairbanks Capital Corp. with operations in Salt Lake City, Utah and
Jacksonville, Florida.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 29,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ph6hoZ
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd S. Dion, Esq.
15 Cottage Avenue, Ste 202
Quincy, MA 02169
Telephone: (401) 965-4131
Facsimile: (401) 270-2202
E-mail: toddsdion@msn.com
SELECT REHABILITATION: Seeks to Stay Class Cert. Response Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN,
CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, and JUSTIN LEMBKE, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, SELECT REHABILITATION, LLC, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court
to enter an order staying its deadline to file a response to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification and staying all
discovery until after the Court rules on Select's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (SAC) for failure to state a
claim filed contemporaneously.
The Plaintiff asserts claims for alleged unpaid overtime wages and
for alleged recordkeeping violations pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"),
and seeks a nationwide collective class under the FLSA and a Rule
23 class action under the IMWL. Plaintiffs allege that the FLSA
collective class consists of 20,000 (or more) program managers and
various different types of therapists and therapist assistants.
To date, there are a total of 44 plaintiffs, including the three
named Plaintiffs and individuals that filed notice to join as
opt-in plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs filed their Mot. Cond. Cert. only days after Select
filed its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
(FAC), and about a week before Plaintiffs' voluntarily filed their
SAC. Select has moved again to dismiss all counts in the SAC
because Plaintiffs have failed to correct flaws in the FAC that
they voluntarily filed.
Select is a provider of contract rehabilitation services, as well
as for nurse and therapy consulting services. (SAC ¶49). 3
Plaintiffs allege that Select supports or provides services to
facilities operating in 2300 locations in 43 states, including
in Florida.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 2, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FSuC00 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Leonard V. Feigel, Esq.
John A. Tucker, Esq.
David B. Goroff, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
One Independent Drive, Suite 1300
Jacksonville, FL 32202-5017
Telephone: (904) 359-2000
Facsimile: (904) 359-8700
E-mail: lfeigel@foley.com
jtucker@foley.com
dgoroff@foley.com
- and -
Diane G. Walker, Esq.
Kristen W. Roberts, Esq.
WALKER MORTON LLP
Two Prudential Plaza
180 North Stetson Ave.
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 471-2900
Facsimile: (312) 471-6001
E-mail: dwalker@walkermortonllp.com
kroberts@walkermortonllp.com
SIGNATURE CARE: Adolphe Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Signature Care LLC.
The case is styled as Fridane Adolphe, and individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Signature Care
LLC, Case No. 522705/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., May 12,
2022).
The case type is stated as "E-Filed Other."
Signature Care -- https://signaturecareny.com/ -- is a New York
State Licensed Home HealthCare Agency that provides comprehensive
homecare services in the New York Metropolitan Area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
VIRGINA & AMBINDER
Phone: (212) 943-9080
The Defendant is represented by:
LITTLER MENDELSON
290 Broadhollow Rd
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 247-4701
- and -
TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN
470 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 216-8000
SIREN SNACKS: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Siren Snacks, Inc.
The case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Siren Snacks, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03932 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Siren Snacks -- https://sirensnacks.com/ -- offers plant-based
protein bites.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
SLOWTIDE LLC: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Slowtide, LLC. The
case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Slowtide, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03930
(S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Slowtide -- https://slowtide.co/ -- elevates a daily essential into
a functional piece of art. Designed in Hawaii & California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
SOLID VENTURES: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solid Ventures, Inc.
The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Solid Ventures, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03877 (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Solid Ventures, Inc. -- https://www.solidventures.vc/ -- is a
private investment group, based in San Diego, California,
specializing in online asset acquisition, growth, and
consulting.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
SONOMA CREAMERY: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sonoma Creamery, LLC.
The case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Sonoma Creamery, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-03952 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sonoma Creamery -- https://sonomacreamery.com/ -- is a dynamic
company and maker of innovative snacks made with simple, high
quality ingredients that surprise, delight and nourish.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
SPORTS RESEARCH: Seeks Reconsideration of April 15 Order
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK CAPACI and CYNTHIA
FORD on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and
the general public, v. SPORTS RESEARCH CORPORATION, a California
Corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-03440-FMO-FFM (C.D. Cal.), Sports
Research moves the Court, pursuant to Local Rule 7-18(c), for
reconsideration of its Order re: Motion for Class Certification
entered on April 15, 2022 granting, in part, Plaintiff Cynthia
Ford's Motion for Class Certification.
Sports Research brings this Motion on the grounds that the Court
failed to consider material facts in determining that plaintiff has
sufficiently shown that consumers were exposed to substantially
similar product labels such that there are common legal or factual
issues to be determined for the proposed classes.
Sports Research is a family-owned company that provides health &
wellness products.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 29, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Mh72w5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Blank, Esq.
Norma V. Garcia, Esq.
GARCIA RAINEY BLANK & BOWERBANK LLP
695 Town Center Drive, Suite 700
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993
Telephone: (714) 382-7000
Facsimile: (714) 784-0031
E-mail: jblank@garciarainey.com
ngarciaguillen@garciarainey.com
ST. LOUIS, MO: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Rescheduled to May 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEILEE FANT, et al., v.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Case No. 4:15-cv-00253-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the Hon.
Judge Audrey G. Fleissig entered an order that:
-- the hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
is rescheduled for Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:00 a.m. This
is a time change only. The hearing will be held in person,
in Courtroom 12S; and
-- having advised the Court that they do not intend to present
evidence, the parties shall have 20 minutes per side for
argument.
St. Louis is a major city in Missouri along the Mississippi River.
Its iconic, 630-ft. Gateway Arch, built in the 1960s, honors the
early 19th-century explorations of Lewis and Clark and America's
westward expansion in general.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sBWH66 at no extra charge.[CC]
STAPLES THE OFFICE: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due August 29
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN CARLOS CORRAL, v.
STAPLES THE OFFICE SUPERSTORE LLC, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-01254-MCS-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarci
entered a scheduling order:
Event Date
-- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off: December 27, 2022
-- Expert Disclosure (Initial): October 24, 2022
-- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal): November 28, 2022
-- Expert Discovery Cut-Off: January 30, 2023
-- Deadline to File a Motion for August 29, 2022
Class Certification:
-- Deadline to File an Opposition September 19, 2022
to the Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Deadline to File a Reply in October 11, 2022
Support of the Motion for
Class Certification:
-- Hearing Date on Motion for October 31, 2022
Class Certification:
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39pSfRn at no extra charge.[CC]
STRATA SKIN: Faces Class Suit in California Court
-------------------------------------------------
Strata Skin Sciences, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2022, that in April
1, 2022, a proposed representative class action under California's
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) was filed in Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego against the company and an
employment agency which provided it with temporary employees.
The complaint alleges various violations of the California Labor
Code, including California's wage and hour laws, relating to its
current and former non-exempt employees. The complaint seeks class
status and payments for allegedly unpaid compensation and
attorney's fees. In a related matter, the attorneys in this matter
and the proposed class representative, in a letter dated March 12,
2022, to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency made
nearly identical claims seeking the right to pursue a PAGA action
against the company and the employment agency.
Strata Skin Sciences, Inc. is a medical technology company in
dermatology dedicated to developing, commercializing and marketing
innovative products for the treatment of dermatologic conditions.
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc.
(NASDAQ: SDIG) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with the Company's October 2021
initial public offering ("IPO") of the important June 13, 2022 lead
plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Stronghold Digital Mining securities
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement 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 Stronghold Digital Mining class
action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5313 or
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 June 13, 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
handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class
action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was
Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the IPO Registration
Statement was materially false and misleading and omitted to state:
(1) contracted suppliers, including MinerVa, were reasonably likely
to miss anticipated delivery quantities and deadlines; (2) due to
strong demand and pre-sold supply of mining equipment in the
industry, Stronghold Digital Mining would experience difficulties
obtaining miners outside of confirmed purchase orders; (3) as a
result of the foregoing, there was a significant risk that
Stronghold Digital Mining could not expand its mining capacity as
expected; (4) as a result, Stronghold Digital Mining would likely
experience significant losses; and (5) as a result, defendants'
statements about Stronghold Digital Mining's business, operations,
and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
To join the Stronghold Digital Mining class action, go to
https://rosenl 481631egal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5313 or 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]
SUGAR FREEDOM: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sugar Freedom Inc.
The case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Sugar Freedom Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03955 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sugar Freedom -- https://sugarfreedom.com/ -- is the new generation
ZERO CALORIE Sugar Substitute.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
SUPER CARE INC: Stephanski Files Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Super Care, Inc. The
case is styled as Charles Stephanski, on his own behalf and on
behalf of those similarly situated v. Super Care, Inc. doing
business as: Supercare Health, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-03248-FMO-SK
(C.D. Cal., May 12, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle.
SuperCare Health -- https://supercarehealth.com/ -- is the leading
respiratory care provider in the Western U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caleb Marker, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
6420 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1080
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Phone: (877) 500-8780
Fax: (877) 500-8781
Email: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com
- and -
Jason P Johnston, Esq.
Rachel K. Tack, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 341-0400
Fax: (612) 341-0844
Email: rachel.tack@zimmreed.com
SUPER CARE: Fails to Protect Patients' Personal, Health Info
------------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Fay at lawstreetmedia.com reports that Harmon Cottrell filed
a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California
against Super Care, Inc. alleging that it failed to properly secure
and safeguard its patients' personally identifiable information
(PII) and protected health information (PHI).
According to the complaint, Super Care Inc. is a California
corporation doing business as SuperCare Health, Inc. and is a
leading in-home respiratory care provider in the Western U.S. with
the goal "to be the most trusted partner managing high-risk
respiratory diseases combining both in-home, high-touch care with
telehealth and remote monitoring." Further, as a corporation doing
business in California, Super Care is legally required to protect
PII and PHI from unauthorized access and exfiltration.
The complaint purports that from July 23, 2021 to July 27, 2021, a
third unknown party gained access to certain systems on the
defendant's network leading to a data breach. The complaint states
that the breach affected nearly 318,400 current and former patients
of Safe Care and the plaintiffs' PII and PHI were potentially
compromised by the data breach including.
The complaint states that despite Safe Care being aware of the data
breach on July 27, 2021, Safe Care did not report the breach to the
Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights until March 28,
2022 and did not inform the plaintiffs of the breach until March
25, 2022. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant failed to
explain why it failed to prevent the data breach nor why it failed
to inform the plaintiffs of the breach for nearly eight months.
The plaintiffs argue that the defendant failed to properly
safeguard and protect their PII and PHI and provide reasonable and
adequate data security in compliance with California law and the
defendant's required standard of care. Additionally, the plaintiffs
state that their PHI is highly coveted and protected under the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and
the defendant's negligence has caused the plaintiffs' PHI to be
compromised in violation of HIPQA.
The complaint argues that Safe Care was obligated under California
law, HIPAA, contract law, industry standards, common law and its
own representation made to the plaintiffs to keep their PII and PHI
confidential. The plaintiffs further argue that the data breach has
put the plaintiffs in iminent, immediate and continuing increased
risk of harm from identity theft and fraud.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs filed the present suit alleging
violations of California's Confidentiality of Medical Information
Act, California's Consumer Records Act and California Unfair
Competition Law, negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract and invasion of privacy. For the alleged causes of action,
the plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory, special and
economic damages and prejudgment interest. The plaintiffs are
represented by Lebe Law, APLC. [GN]
SWEET JULY: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sweet July LLC. The
case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Sweet July LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03915
(S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sweet July -- https://sweetjuly.com/ -- is a budding brand
encompassing a magazine, brick-and-mortar store and product
line.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
SWIFT TRANS: Bouissey, et al., Seek to Certify Truck Driver Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD BOUISSEY et al.,
and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-03203-VAP-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying the following Class under Rules 23(a) and
(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
"All individuals employed by Defendant Swift Transportation
Co. Of Arizona, LLC and/or Defendant Swift Transportation
Co., Inc. as an over-the-road truck driver at any time from
November 26, 2014 until the date class notice is provided
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2), with the following
limitations:
The individual must either be (1) based out of a work
location within California, (2) have the majority of his or
her DOT hours logged in California, and/or (3) be a resident
of California:
-- For condition (1), membership in the class is limited to
the time period during which the individual has been based
out of a California location;
-- For condition (2), membership in the class is limited to
those workweeks during which the DOT logs show a majority
of hours logged in California; and
-- For condition (3), membership in the class is limited to
just DOT hours logged in California.
Further, the Class excludes Settlement Class Members
covered by the class action settlement in Burnell, et al.
v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., et al., Case No.
5:2020-cv-00809 (C.D. Cal.), for the period of time
covered by the settlement class release in that case.
The Plaintiffs' proposed class definition above is intended to
supersede the definition in the Class Action Complaint. In
addition, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is
limited to the following causes of action of the Class Action
Complaint, in the following respects:
1. First Cause of Action: Failure to pay for all hours worked
under Cal. Lab. C. Sections 201, 202, 204, and 221-223,
arising from unpaid time subject to Swift's control logged
as "sleeper berth" or "off duty" on Drivers' Department of
Transportation (DOT) driver logs;
2. Second Cause of Action: Failure to pay minimum wages under
Cal. Lab. C. sections 7 1182.11, 1182.12, 1194, 1197, and
1197.1; and IWC Wage Order No. 9, arising from unpaid time
subject to Swift's control logged as "sleeper berth" or
"off duty" on Drivers' DOT driver logs;
3. Fifth Cause of Action: Failure to keep accurate payroll
records showing accurate hours worked under Cal. Lab. C.
sections 1174 and 1174.5, arising from failure to pay for
time subject to Swift's control logged as "sleeper berth"
or "off duty" on Drivers' DOT driver logs;
4. Sixth Cause of Action: Failure to furnish wage statements
showing accurate wages earned, hours worked, and
applicable hourly rates under Cal. Lab. C. sections 16
226; arising from failure to pay for time subject to
Swift's control logged as "sleeper berth" or "off duty" on
Drivers' DOT driver logs;
5. Seventh Cause of Action: Waiting time penalties under Cal.
Lab. C. sections 201-203, 19 arising from failure to pay
for time subject to Swift's control logged as "sleeper
berth" or "off duty" on Drivers' DOT driver logs; and
6. Eighth Cause of Action: Violation of California Business
and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq., but only
insofar as such violation is predicated on one or more
violations alleged in the First, Second, Fifth, Sixth,
Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action as described.
The Plaintiffs further move the Court to appoint the Plaintiffs
Edward Bouissey and Richard Hodges as Class representatives under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
LLP to serve as Class Counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1) &
(4).
The Plaintiffs further request that the Court permit them to submit
a proposed form of notice to the Class and a notice plan to the
Court if certification is granted, pursuant to Fed. 10 R. Civ. P.
23(c)(2)
Swift provides transportation services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 29,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sDIeqm
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua Konecky, Esq.
Nathan Piller, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
npiller@schneiderwallace.com
TAPESTRY INC: Settlement in Ornelas Suit Wins Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN ORNELAS v. TAPESTRY,
INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-06453-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
entered an order granting the parties move for final approval of
their class settlement and class counsel move for attorney's fees
and costs.
In brief, plaintiff worked as a sales associate at defendant's
retail store, which required its employees to undergo a security
check prior to leaving the store. Plaintiff alleged that defendant
did not pay him for time spent undergoing the security checks and
that the security checks interfered with meal and rest breaks.
A previous order granted defendant's motion for partial summary
judgment as to the meal and rest breaks, leaving only plaintiff's
claims for unpaid wages and overtime.
A subsequent order then certified the wage and overtime claims for
class treatment. Specifically, the only issues certified for class
treatment were the class's "claims for unpaid minimum wages and
overtime incurred as a result of defendant's security check
policy".
The parties reached a class action settlement agreement in November
2021 that would create a $342,500 fund to compensate the class.
Since preliminary approval, notice of the settlement has reached
188 of 190 class members.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ph7jRT at no extra charge.[CC]
TARGET CORP: Must Face Class Action Over iTunes Gift Cards
----------------------------------------------------------
Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Target Corp.
largely lost its bid to dismiss a would-be nationwide class action
alleging that it knowingly sold Apple iTunes gift cards that were
vulnerable to third-party theft, after the District of Minnesota
said many of its arguments were premature.
Judge Donovan W. Frank of the US District Court for the District of
Minnesota partly granted Target's motion to dismiss with respect to
a single count under Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices
Act. He limited any potential relief under that claim to attorneys'
fees and costs, but he declined to toss any of their other claims.
[GN]
TEAM HEALTH: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FORWARD MOMENTUM, LLC, et
al., v. TEAM HEALTH, INC., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00346-WKW-JTA
(M.D. Ala.), the "Class Representatives", Forward Momentum, LLC,
Argo Consulting, PC, Lisa M. Bundy, MD, LLC, Dr. Steven Bobo, Dr.
Raymond J. Maguire, Dr. Landon E. Argo, Dr. Nima Bahraini, Dr. Dawn
Donald, Dr. Roger D. Eiland, and Dr. Lisa M. Bundy, on behalf of
themselves and the Class, ask the Court to enter an order:
-- finally approving the class settlement of the Plaintiffs'
Claims against Team Health LLC f/k/a Team Health, Inc. and
Paragon Contracting Services, LLC; and
-- certifying the Settlement Class for settlement purposes
only.
The Class Representatives seek final approval of their Class and
Settlement Agreement. The Class and other terms of the Settlement
Agreement were agreed upon after several years of intense
litigation and arm’s-length negotiations with the assistance of
highly respected mediators.
The Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and likely
to warrant final approval under the Eleventh Circuit's long
standing class settlement fairness factors as well as the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2), the Plaintiffs contend.
Moreover, the Settlement Class satisfies and is certifiable under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), and (b)(3). The Plan of Distribution of
settlement proceeds and Notice should be approved because it is
fair, adequate, and reasonable. No objections warrant disapproval
of the Settlement.
TeamHealth offers careers for physicians plus hospital management
and staffing services for facilities across the country.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 2, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wtM0ns at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
D.G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq.
Craig L. Lowell, Esq.
WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS
FISHER GOLDFARB LLC
The Kress Building
301 Nineteenth Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 314-0557
E-mail: dgpjr@wigginschilds.com
clowell@wigginschilds.com
TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD: Schilder Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tenderloin
Neighborhood Development Corporation, et al. The case is styled as
John Schilder, an individual(s), on behalf of, himself and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Tenderloin Neighborhood
Development Corporation, Does 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22599603
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 12, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation (TNDC) --
https://www.tndc.org/ -- provides affordable, sustainable housing
and service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
JCL LAW FIRM, APC
5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600
San Diego, CA 92121-6720
Phone: 619-599-8292
Fax: 619-599-8291
Email: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com
- and -
Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600
San Diego, CA 92121-6720
Phone: 619-255-9047
Fax: 858-404-9203
Email: shani@zakaylaw.com
TERRAFORM LABS: Luna Fiasco Escalates Into Class Action By Victims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Min-hyung at koreatimes.co.kr reports that the devastated
investors of Terra and Luna are moving to take class action against
Do Kwon, co-founder of Terraform Labs, which developed the
scandal-tainted cryptocurrencies.
LKB & Partners, a Seoul-based law firm, sued him and filed a
provisional attachment of his assets, , holding him responsible for
the recent crash of the two coins, the values of which have in
about a week plummeted to near zero.
A group of 1,700 victims of the fiasco also share the same plan to
sue Kwon and Shin Hyun-sung, better known by his English name,
Daniel Shin, the co-founder of the company, to Seoul Southern
District Court.
As the cryptocurrency industry is still in a legal grey area here,
it is not clear whether the investors will be able to get any
compensation from Kwon and his company.
Despite the investors moving to take legal action, Kwon recently
shared his plan to launch a decentralized exchange that will
operate under the new Terra 2.0 ecosystem, as part of an updated
initiative to set up a new chain without an algorithmic
stablecoin.
But as his latest Terra stablecoin project ended in spectacular
failure, crypto investors and moguls are expressing skepticism over
Kwon's revival plan.
According to the industry, the National Tax Service conducted a
special tax investigation on Terraform Labs and its parent firm,
The Encore Company, in June of last year over their alleged evasion
of paying tens of billions of won in corporate and income taxes.
Officials from the authority were unavailable for comment.
Korea's financial authorities are also stepping up monitoring of
crypto exchanges, so that they can figure out the exact scale of
damages to retail investors. According to the Financial Services
Commission, the number of Luna's Korean holders reached 280,000 and
they held 70 billion Luna tokens.
With the Luna scandal escalating fear sentiment here and abroad,
local crypto exchanges decided to delist the two tokens. Under the
decision, Luna cannot be traded through Upbit, the nation's largest
crypto exchange, from May 20. Bithumb will also follow suit on May
27.
All eyes are also on whether the revived Financial and Securities
Crimes Joint Investigation Team under the country's prosecution
will launch a probe into the Luna scandal. The organization was
disbanded in January 2020, but was launched once again, shortly
after prosecutor-turned-President Yoon Suk-yeol took office.
Even if Kwon and his company face multiple lawsuits here and
abroad, it still appears that it will be hard for Terra and Luna
investors to be compensated.
"Korea's financial authorities have reiterated their warning on
crypto investment for the past few years due to its high price
volatility and the legal ambiguity surrounding the crypto
industry," Sejong University business professor Kim Dae-jong said.
"The latest scandal is different from conventional securities
fraud, as there is not a single legal safeguard to protect crypto
victims." [GN]
TOMS RIVER TOWNSHIP: Smit Files RICO Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toms River Township,
et al. The case is styled as Gerald Smit, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Toms River Township,
John Does, to be later identified, Ocean County NJ, Case No.
3:22-cv-02594-FLW-RLS (D.N.J., May 2, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for
the Racketeering (RICO) Act.
Toms River -- https://tomsrivertownship.com/ -- is a township in
Ocean County, New Jersey, United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
TOYOTA AUSTRALIA: To Pay Damages Over Defective Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------
The members of the class action against Toyota Australia over its
defective diesel particulate filter (DPF) are to be awarded payouts
to cover the vehicle's drop in value.
The Federal Court judgement from May 16 found in favour of the
original applicant and class action group members, and has ordered
Toyota Australia to pay damages.
According to the order, the Federal Court found that, as a result
of the defective DPF, the affected vehicles "were not of acceptable
quality", and that Toyota Australia engaged in "misleading or
deceptive conduct" in relation to marketing and selling the
specified models.
The Court found that the value of the impacted vehicles at the time
of sale was reduced because of the faulty DPF and determined that
the amount of the reduction in value was 17.5 per cent of the
average retail price.
As a result, all eligible members of the class action are entitled
to monetary compensation for the drop in value, "and for the excess
GST they paid as a result of acquiring their vehicles at prices
which were higher than the true value of those vehicles".
The second applicant of the action was awarded a total payout of
$18,401.76 over the DPF issue in their Toyota Prado.
This was made up of $7474.59 for the drop in value, $747.46 for the
excess GST, $246.60 for excess stamp duty, $1650.32 for excess
financing costs, $4725 for income lost due to having the Prado
serviced for the DPF issues and $3559.79 in interest on the above
amounts.
Each class action member will be entitled to compensation of 17.5
per cent of the retail price as outlined above and the law firm for
the members, Gilbert + Tobin, is urging affected owners that are
not already part of the action to register their interest.
Given each of the models and their respective variants had
differing retail prices at the time of purchase, the amount that
each class action member receives will differ.
Some owners have already received a refund, a replacement vehicle
or compensation payout directly from Toyota Australia, in which
case that will be taken into account under the Court-approved
compensation distribution scheme.
The DPF problem affects Toyota HiLux, Fortuner and Prado models
fitted with a 2.8-litre (1GD-FTV) or 2.4-litre (2GD-FTV)
turbo-diesel engine, sold in Australia between October 2015 and
April 2020.
The DPF is part of the vehicle's exhaust system and is designed to
capture and trap exhaust soot and other particles that are created
during the diesel combustion process. This then ensures that they
are prevented from being pumped into the atmosphere when the
vehicle is operating.
As previously reported, 264,170 vehicles are affected by this DPF
problem and the total payout amount could add up to close to $2
billion.
Toyota Australia has appealed the Court's judgement and if
successful, it would mean the applicants could lose the entitlement
to receive money, or the amount could be reduced.
CarsGuide has contacted Toyota Australia for comment. [GN]
TOYOTETSU NORTH AMERICA: Phelps Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jonathan Phelps, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Toyotetsu North America, Case No.
22-CI-00328 was removed from the Pulaski Circuit Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on May 12,
2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:22-cv-00106-CHB-HAI to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
TOYOTETSU North America -- https://ttna.com/ -- is proud to be a
community leader in launch of Kentucky FAME in the Cumberland
Region and Greater Owensboro Region.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph B. Venters, Esq.
VENTERS LAW OFFICE
35 Public Square
P.O. Box 1749
Somerset, KY 42501
Phone: (606) 451-0332
Fax: (606) 451-0335
Email: joey@venterslaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Judd R. Uhl, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP - LEXINGTON
2333 Alexandria Drive
Lexington, KY 40504
Phone: (859) 663-9830
Fax: (859) 663-9829
Email: Judd.Uhl@lewisbrisbois.com
- and -
Russell Morgan Salisbury, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP - FT. WRIGHT
909 Wright's Summit Parkway, Suite 230
Ft. Wright, KY 41011
Phone: (859) 663-9830
Fax: (859) 663-9829
Email: Morgan.Salisbury@lewisbrisbois.com
TRANSFORCE INC: Class Cert. Briefing Sched Modified in Lim Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANTIAGO LIM individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TFORCE
LOGISTICS, LLC, and TFORCE FINAL MILE WEST, Case No.
2:19-cv-04390-JAK-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt
entered an order approving in part stipulation regarding continuing
hearing date and briefing schedule of Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification to permit parties additional time to conduct
declarant discovery.
The briefing schedule regarding Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is modified as follows:
Event Current New
Deadline Deadline
-- Last day to file motion March 8, 2022 Filed (Dkt. 166)
for class certification:
-- Last day to file response May 13, 2022 June 13, 2022
to motion for class
certification:
-- Last day to file reply May 27, 2022 July 25, 2022
to motion for class
certification:
-- Hearing on Motion for June 27, 2022 Aug. 22, 2022
Class Certification:
TForce specializes in providing delivery solutions, fleet
replacement, e-commerce and financial services.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Pqn5cY at no extra charge.[CC]
TRITERRAS INC: Settles Class Action Over Securities Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Triterras Inc. (OTC Expert Market: TRIRF) ("Triterras" or the
"Company"), a leading fintech company focused on trade and trade
finance, on May 16 disclosed that Triterras and all defendants in
the class action Erlandson v. Triterras, Inc., et al. (Civil Action
No. 7:20-cv-10795-CS (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Action")), have entered into
a settlement agreement to fully and completely resolve the Action.
The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing, fault or
liability. Under the terms of the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement ("Settlement Agreement"), which has been filed with the
Court, Triterras will pay $9 million, of which a portion will be
covered by insurance. The Settlement Agreement is subject to
approval by the Court and the fulfillment of other conditions set
forth therein, all of which involve inherent risks and substantial
uncertainties. A copy of the Settlement Agreement is attached to
this press release.
About Triterras
Triterras is a global fintech company co-headquartered in Singapore
and Dubai and leading innovator of inclusive finance solutions for
the world's micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs). The
company launched and operates Kratos™—one of the world's
largest digital financing platforms--to directly connect MSMEs with
lenders online and source capital across commodity trading, supply
chain, logistics, and ecommerce finance. For more information,
please visit triterras.com or email us at contact@triterras.com.
[GN]
UNITED STATES: High Court Refuses to Review Residency Cert. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that the US
Supreme Court declined on May 16 to hear an appeal brought by the
Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates over the
criteria to certify an issue class under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
It's at least the fifth time the high court has declined to resolve
questions about the claimed circuit split over the interplay
between Rule 23(b)(3), which authorizes a class action where common
questions predominate over individual questions, and Rule 23(c)(4),
which allows issue certification when "appropriate." [GN]
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of July 12 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on May 17 dislcosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Upstart Holdings, Inc. ("Upstart" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: UPST) in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Upstart securities
between November 9, 2021 and May 9, 2022, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until July 12, 2022 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
On May 9, 2022, after the market closed, Upstart announced its
first quarter 2022 financial results in a press release. Therein,
the Company reduced its fiscal 2022 guidance, expecting revenue of
approximately $1.25 billion and contribution margin of 48%. During
the related conference call, Upstart's Chief Financial Officer
cited "rising interest rates and rising consumer delinquencies [as]
putting downward pressure on conversion."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $43.52, or 56%, to
close at $33.61 per share on May 10, 2022.
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 Upstart's AI model could not adequately account
for macroeconomic factors such as interest rates that impact the
market-clearing price for loans; (2) that, as a result, Upstart was
experiencing negative impact on its conversion rate; (3) that, as a
result, the Company was reasonably likely to use its balance sheet
to fund loans; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Upstart 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 Melissa Fortunato 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.
Contacts
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of July 12 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Upstart Holdings, Inc. ("Upstart" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: UPST) in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of investors who
purchased Upstart stock between November 9, 2021 and May 9, 2022,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: (1) that Upstart's AI model could not adequately
account for macroeconomic factors such as interest rates that
impact the market-clearing price for loans; (2) that, as a result,
Upstart was experiencing negative impact on its conversion rate;
(3) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to use its
balance sheet to fund loans; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Upstart
should contact the Firm prior to the July 12, 2022 lead plaintiff
motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm.[GN]
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of July 12 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP on May 16 disclosed
that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of
Upstart Holdings, Inc. ('Upstart' or the 'Company') (NASDAQ: UPST).
The class action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased between
November 9, 2021 and May 9, 2022. Investors are hereby notified
that they have until July 12, 2022 to move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff in this action.
What actions may I take at this time? If you suffered a loss and
are interested in learning more about being a lead plaintiff,
please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone
at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.
To join this action, you can click or copy and paste the link below
in a
browser:https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/upstart-holdings-inc-news-class-action
There is no cost or obligation to you.
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 Upstart's AI model could not adequately account
for macroeconomic factors such as interest rates that impact the
market-clearing price for loans; (2) that, as a result, Upstart was
experiencing negative impact on its conversion rate; (3) that, as a
result, the Company was reasonably likely to use its balance sheet
to fund loans; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Upstart class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the Upstart class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. For more information regarding the lead
plaintiff process please refer to
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/lead-plaintiff-deadlines.
About Johnson Fistel, LLP:Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally
recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California,
New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel seeks to recover losses
incurred due to violations of federal securities laws. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes.
Contact: Johnson Fistel, LLPJim Baker, 619-814-4471Investor
Relationsjimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises Upstart Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: UPST)
investors that a class action filed on behalf of investors that
purchased Upstart Holdings shares and lost money are encouraged to
contact the firm to discuss their legal rights.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by
phone 844-767-8529 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss
their legal rights, or click here to join the case via
www.portnoylaw.com. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a
complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for
pursuing claims to recover their losses.
Upstart Holdings, Inc. (UPST) Misled Investors Regarding its
Business Prospects
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose to investors that Upstart's AI model could not
adequately account for macroeconomic factors such as interest rates
that impact the market-clearing price for loans. In addition, the
Company was experiencing negative impact on its conversion rate and
reasonably likely to use its balance sheet to fund loans.
On May 9, 2022, Upstart announced its first quarter 2022 financial
results, reducing its fiscal 2022 guidance, expecting revenue of
approximately $1.25 billion and contribution margin of 48%. During
the related conference call, Upstart's Chief Financial Officer
indicated that the "balance of loans, notes, and residuals at the
end of the quarter was ... up to $604 million from $261 million in
Q4," citing "rising interest rates and rising consumer
delinquencies [as] putting downward pressure on conversion." On
this news, the Company's stock price fell $43.52, or 56%, to close
at $33.61 per share on May 10, 2022.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
against caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner
has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 16
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Upstart Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:
UPST) between November 9, 2021 and May 9, 2022, 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 July 12, 2022.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Upstart 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 Upstart class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6208 or 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 July 12, 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. 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 made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Upstart's AI model could not adequately account for
macroeconomic factors such as interest rates that impact the
market-clearing price for loans; (2) as a result, Upstart was
experiencing negative impact on its conversion rate; (3) as a
result, the Company was reasonably likely to use its balance sheet
to fund loans; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Upstart class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6208 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Saxena White Files New Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit
(the "Class Action") in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against Upstart Holdings, Inc.
("Upstart" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: UPST) and certain of its
executive officers (collectively, "Defendants"). The Class Action
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of
all persons or entities that purchased Upstart securities between
March 18, 2021 and May 9, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and
were damaged thereby (the "Class"). A previous securities fraud
class action complaint filed against Upstart asserted a shorter
class period of November 9, 2021 through May 9, 2022. The Class
Action filed by Saxena White is captioned: Plymouth County
Retirement Association v. Upstart Holdings, Inc., et al., No.
3:22-cv-02973 (N.D. Cal.)
Upstart is a financial technology firm that uses artificial
intelligence ("AI") and data science to underwrite consumer credit.
The Company partners with banks to offer credit to consumers,
either through the Upstart website or through banking partner
websites embedded with Upstart technology. Upstart claims that its
underwriting process allows banking partners to originate credit
with higher approval rates, lower loss rates, and a high degree of
automation. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants claimed that
the lack of loans the Company retained on its balance sheet ensured
it only was exposed to limited credit risk. Further, Defendants
assured investors the Company was "cognizant of the fluidity in the
macro environment," but was "not expecting any meaningful adverse
impact from rising defaults on our volumes or economics."
Additionally, Upstart's "technology and model-driven" growth
"manifest[ed] as increasing conversion rates," an important metric
representing the number of rate inquiries that resulted in loan
transactions.
The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
misled investors and/or failed to disclose: (1) Upstart's AI
underwriting model could not and did not adequately account for
macroeconomic factors such as interest rate increases and the end
of the U.S. government stimulus; (2) that, as a result, Upstart was
experiencing negative impacts on its conversion rate; (3) that, as
a result, the Company was reasonably likely to use its balance
sheet to fund loans, rendering its balance sheet highly exposed to
credit risk; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.
The truth emerged after the markets closed on May 9, 2022, when
Upstart released its financial results for the first quarter of
2022, which included a dramatic increase in loans on its balance
sheet. Specifically, loans on the Company's balance sheet had more
than doubled in just one quarter: from $252.4 million for the
period ending to December 31, 2021, to $597.9 million for the
period ended March 31, 2022. During a related earnings call,
Defendants attributed the increase of loans on the Company's
balance sheet to "rising interest rates and rising consumer
delinquencies putting downward pressure on conversion." In response
to this news, Upstart's stock price fell 56%, from a closing price
of $77.13 per share on May 9, 2022, to a closing price of $33.61
per share on May 10, 2022.
If you purchased Upstart securities during the Class Period and
were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be
able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to
be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California no
later than July 12, 2022. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed
representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery
in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there is a
recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent
Class member.
You may contact David Kaplan (dkaplan@saxenawhite.com), an attorney
and Director at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding
the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class
Action. You also may retain counsel of your choice to represent you
in the Class Action.
You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively
joining the Class Action at www.saxenawhite.com.
Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, California,
and Delaware, is a leading national law firm focused on prosecuting
securities class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of
injured investors. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous
securities fraud class actions nationwide, Saxena White has
recovered billions of dollars on behalf of injured investors. [GN]
VIMPELCOM LTD: Appointment Bids for Lead Plaintiff Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kux-Kardos v. Vimpelcom,
Ltd. et al. (RE: VEON LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No.
1:15-cv-08672-ALC-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ona T. Wang
entered an order that:
1. SKS's motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and motion
for appointment of Lead Counsel are denied; and
2. Lvov's motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for
appointment of Lead Counsel are granted.
This securities class action was brought on behalf of individuals
who purchased VEON shares between June 30, 2011 and November 3,
2015, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5.
The SAC alleges that during the relevant class period, the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, failed to disclose
adverse material facts about VEON's business, operations, and
prospects, and that the disclosure of these acts and omissions
caused a precipitous decline in VEON's stock price.
The Defendant's wrongful conduct during the relevant period gave
rise to investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) and the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ). During
the pendency of this action, VEON entered into a deferred
prosecution agreement with the USDOJ, pursuant to which VEON
pleaded guilty to a two-count criminal information charging the
company with conspiracy to violate the anti-bribery and books and
records provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977
(FCPA).
The two competing Motions for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff are
brought by Boris Lvov and a group of Plaintiffs comprised of
Sherman Steele, Leonard Karpwich, and Stan Sinitsa ("SKS"). Both
movants propose to replace prior Lead Plaintiff Westway, which has
been dismissed from this action for lack of standing. Lvov
originally sought and was denied Lead Plaintiff status in 2015, and
has been participating in the litigation since that time.
SKS became parties to this litigation more recently, by being added
as Named Plaintiffs in the Second Amended Complaint filed on April
14, 2020.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ld4e7v at no extra charge.[CC]
VISION SOLAR: Seeks Dismissal of Calta Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL CALTA, v. VISION
SOLAR FL, LLC a/k/a VISION SOLAR, LLC, Case No.
8:22-cv-00897-CEH-CPT (M.D. Fla.), Vision solar asks the Court that
the case be dismissed or stayed in the alternative based on:
(a) the first-filed rule; and
(b) the Complaint containing insufficient allegations
regarding the nature and origin of Vision Solar's alleged
improper telephonic solicitation.
Vision Solar asks an entry of an Order dismissing the Plaintiff's
Class Action Complaint and awarding Vision Solar any and all such
other appropriate relief. In the alternative, Vision Solar
respectfully requests that this case be stayed in its entirety.
This class action, which involves claims against Vision Solar
arising from allegedly unauthorized, automated telephonic
solicitations, should be dismissed (or in the alternative, stayed)
based on the "first-filed rule." There are already two
pending Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) class
action cases against Vision Solar wherein the proposed classes are
broader and thus encompass the proposed class set forth in
Plaintiff's Complaint.
Accordingly, giving the overlapping parties and issues, this Court
should follow the strong presumption across the federal circuits
that favors the forum of the first-filed suit under the first-filed
rule, the Defendant contends.
Vision Solar designs and installs the best performing,
cost-efficient, and aesthetically pleasing solar solutions in the
industry.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 2, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LpqBkS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Peerce Howard, Esq.
Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM PLLC
401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 500-1500
Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Bonnie@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
- and -
John W. Barrett, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 345-6555
Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
E-mail: JBarrett@baileyglasser.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Seth B. Burack, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
777 South Flagler Drive
Suite 1700 West Tower
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 804-4418
Facsimile: (561) 835-9602
E-mail: sburack@foxrothschild.com
bhutson@foxrothschild.com
VMK INC: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Reeves Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reeves v. VMK, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-01948 (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Michael E Hegarty
entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to amend
scheduling order as follows:
-- Discovery due by: Sept. 28, 2022
-- Dispositive Motions due by: Dec. 1, 2022
-- Proposed Pretrial Order due by: Jan. 10, 2023
-- The deadline to file a Motion October 27, 2022
for Class Certification is
extended to:
-- The Final Pretrial Conference Jan. 17, 2023
currently set for October 20,
2022 is rescheduled to:
The suit involves restrictions of use of telephone equipment.
VMK is an IT Company.[CC]
WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Getchel Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leah Getchel, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Wakefield and
Associates, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02436-MSN-atc (W.D. Tenn.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court for an Order pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for class certification and
such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Wakefield and Associates is a debt collection agency.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 29, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yCGRMw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eliyahu Babad, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ, 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 121
E-mail: EBabad@SteinSaksLegal.com
WALMART INC: Flores Must File Class Cert. Bid by Jan. 20, 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANUEL FLORES on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. WALMART, INC. a
Delaware corporation, a California corporation and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-00181-TJH-RAOx (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. entered an order granting
stipulation to continue briefing and hearing deadlines on motion
for class certification as follows:
-- The deadline for Plaintiff to file a class certification
motion is January 20, 2023;
-- The deadline for Walmart to file an opposition to the
Plaintiff’s class certification motion is March 3, 2023;
-- The deadline for Plaintiff to file a reply in support of
his class certification motion is March 31, 2023;
-- The hearing on Plaintiff’s class certification motion is
April 17, 2023; and
-- The Parties are to submit a joint status report four weeks
after a ruling on Plaintiff's class certification motion,
which will include a proposed further schedule, including
proposed dates for a final pre-trial conference and trial.
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38w9pwr at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Plaintiff Manuel Flores on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, are:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
The Attorneys for Defendant Walmart Inc., are:
Robert J. Herrington, Esq.
Alex Linhardt, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1840 Century Park East, 19th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 586-7700
Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
E-mail: herringtonr@gtlaw.com
linhardta@gtlaw.com
WALT DISNEY: Faces Suit Over Disneyland Dream Key Annual Passes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Carey, writing for ThatHashtag Show, reports that if you are
or ever have been a Disneyland Passholder, the old convenient days
are gone and the "Disney Magic Key" nightmare is here. Previously
with the Annual Pass Program, when you paid the maximum fee you
could get into Disneyland with free parking and zero blockout
dates. Now, with the Dream Key Pass, you can pay even more money
with the promise of no blocked dates. However, getting a
reservation during any busy time is nearly impossible. That is the
complaint filed by Disneyland Magic Key annual pass holder, Jenale
Nielsen. This complaint has been working its way through the courts
since November 2021.
The lawsuit filed against Disney alleges that Nielsen purchased a
$1,399 Disneyland Dream Key annual pass with no blockout dates in
September of 2021. However, they were unable to make any theme park
reservations for certain dates in November 2021.
"[The] Plaintiff alleges that the term 'no blockout dates' is not
defined in the advertisement, but that she understood the term to
mean that Dream Key Pass holders would not be blocked from making
theme park reservations 'whenever Disney was offering park
reservations for entrance to the theme parks. She also understood
the advertisement's statement that 'park reservations are subject
to availability and are not guaranteed for any specific dates or
park' to mean that 'if park reservations were available and being
offered to the public, Dream Key holders could use their passes to
make reservations for entry to the parks."
The $5 million suit filed against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts on
behalf of all Magic Key annual pass holders alleges Disneyland
relegated them to "second class" ticket holders. How so? By
artificially limiting Magic Key reservations and the number of
passholders that can visit on any given day.
HOW TRUE ARE THESE ALLEGATIONS?
Well, Disney agrees that the phrase "blockout date" is not defined.
However, they deny the phrase "'no blockout' dates can be
reasonably understood to mean Dream Key passholders can make
reservations whenever Disneyland or Disney California Adventure
offers theme park reservations."
Disney also admits it promised there would be no blockout dates for
Dream Key pass holders. However, they deny that they blocked out
dates to Dream Key pass holders. However, if you've read anything
from Disney Parks about Dream Key passes, they have said that this
new program helps with crowd control. They have said Disneyland has
the power to artificially limit theme park reservations for
Passholders and single ticket holders alike. However, saying they
can and actually doing it are two different things.
Disneyland is obviously aware of the Magic Key Reservation issue,
even if they don't want to fully admit it. Currently, the Dream Key
and Believe Key passes are sold out. Which, to my knowledge, has
never happened with any incarnation of a Disneyland Annual Pass.
If you're a current Dream Keyholder (like me) I'm sure you can
agree with the statement above. I currently own the 2nd tier Dream
Key and can rarely use it on the weekends I pay for. You must make
reservations months out or hope someone cancels the night before
you were hoping to go. Previously, I've had multiple tiered
Disneyland Annual Passes, including the original reservation pass,
Flex-Pass. I never had these issues before Dream Key. So, I
understand Nielsen's frustration. The feeling of being treated as
"second class" ticket holders, as the complaint states, is a true
statement. Disney Parks has the power to limit Magic Key
reservations for pass holders on any given day. They are not tiered
off depending on your pass. We are all fighting for days out of the
same pool.
WHERE DOES THE LAWSUIT STAND?
Currently, United States District Court Judge David Carter has
denied Disney's motion to dismiss the Dream Key case. He is
allowing it to proceed. And it seems that Nielsen's attorneys are
seeking to have the case certified as a class action by the U.S.
District Court. So, if this $5million dollar lawsuit becomes a
class action you can bet your bippy I'll be signing up.
Judge Carter is allowing this case to move forward because it falls
under breach of contract. It also falls under the California
consumer protection act. However, Judge Carter has granted Disney's
dismissal motions relating to claims of false advertising,
negligent misrepresentation, legal disclosure, as well as unfair
competition.
"The court finds that plaintiff has adequately pled facts
supporting how a reasonable consumer may be deceived by the
advertisement, which states 'no blockout dates.'" Carter wrote in
his ruling. "Plaintiff argues that ordinary consumers generally
understand blockout dates to be 'dates when tickets, credits,
passes or rewards cannot be used.'"
So, what do you think? Are the Dream Key allegations without merit?
Do you believe the lawsuit should become a class action? Comment
and let us know! [GN]
WATA GAMES: Faces Class Suit Over Manipulation of Retro Game Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
According to PCGamer's Ted Litchfield, as reported by VGC,
collectible grading service Wata is facing a class-action lawsuit
over allegedly conspiring with Heritage Auctions to pump up the
value of rare videogames. Wata and Heritage both deny any
wrongdoing.
Grading services like Wata assess the condition of mint videogames
and assign them a rank based on that physical condition. The games
are then sealed in a clear plastic housing for preservation with
the rating clearly displayed.
While communicating with rival rating service VGA to research our
round-up of the rarest collectible PC games, a company
representative claimed that "our company does not provide any type
of appraisal service and the market value is determined by the
video game community."
In the past few years, the prices of collectible games have
skyrocketed. In 2017, a sealed copy of Super Mario Bros. sold for
$30,000 at auction, the most anyone had paid for a copy of a
videogame to that point. This sale also took place before Wata had
gotten up and running.
Between 2019 and the end of 2021, Wata-graded games sold through
Heritage auctions broke the record for most expensive videogame
ever sold six times in a row:
February 2019: Super Mario Bros., $100,150
July 2020: Super Mario Bros., $114,000
November 2020: Super Mario Bros. 3, $156,000
April 2021: Super Mario Bros., $660,000
July 2021: The Legend of Zelda, $870,000
July 2021: Super Mario 64, $1.56 million
That last record has since been broken by the $2 million sale of a
Wata-graded copy of Super Mario Bros. on the website Rally.
The class action lawsuit alleges that Heritage and Wata coordinated
media appearances and press releases to drive up the prices of
collectible games, with Heritage taking a cut of successful sales
and Wata's fee for its services being proportional to a game's
estimated price.
In September of 2021, journalist Seth Abramson published an article
to his Substack newsletter, Retro, alleging that Wata co-founder
Mark Haspel was selling a significant volume of Wata-graded games
through eBay. This goes against best practices and ethics among
grading houses, and also directly contradicts statements by Wata
president Deniz Khan to the New York Times that the company's
employees would not personally sell Wata-graded games due to the
potential conflict of interest. Also covered by Abramson through
Retro, Haspel subsequently admitted to selling Wata-graded games,
while also claiming to have distanced himself from the company.
Despite this, Haspel continues to have a featured place on the
company website alongside the rest of its executive team.
The big-ticket items of the overheated collectible games market are
mostly classic console releases, but as we noted in our report on
rare big box games, things are getting pretty crazy on the PC side
as well.
Ultima: Escape From Mt. Drash has one of the best claims to the
title of all-time rarest PC game, being a cassette-based entry of a
popular series with an exceedingly limited original retail
distribution. A copy sold for $9,002 in 2017 before the current
market developed, and no new copies have gone on sale since.
Last December, a DOS copy of the original John Madden Football sold
for an astonishing $25,000 on eBay, and collectible PC games are
regularly selling for over $1,000 at auction—once an extreme
rarity according to Joel McCoy, administrator of the Big Box PC
Game Collectors Group on Facebook.
Thankfully, the current situation around NFTs and cryptocurrency
shows us that the aggressive overvaluing of assets like this could
never catastrophically collapse and take people with it—the line
just keeps going up and up. [GN]
WELCH FOODS: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Clevenger Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARREN CLEVENGER and DAVID
BLOOM on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
WELCH FOODS INC., A COOPERATIVE, THE PROMOTION IN MOTION COMPANIES,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Case No. 8:20-cv-01859-CJC-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac
J. Carney entered an order amending the scheduling order as
follows:
-- The date by which Plaintiffs must file any motion to
compel regarding PIM's responses/objections to (1)
Interrogatories, Set 6, and (2) Requests for Admission,
Set 3, is continued to 30 days after the Court rules on
their motion for class certification, currently set for
hearing on June 13, 2022.
Welch is an American company, headquartered in Concord,
Massachusetts. It has been owned by the National Grape Cooperative
Association, a co-op of grape growers, since 1956.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FY3EUU at no extra charge.[CC]
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Pressley Breach of Contract Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2022, that a putative
class action lawsuit filed in in October 24, 2013 brought against
the company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn Pressley and others,
in New York State Supreme Court (New York County, is still
pending.
The claims initially included breach of contract and unjust
enrichment, such as the handling and reporting of funds on behalf
of models and the use of model images. Wilhelmina filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint on September 29, 2017, which was
granted in part and denied in part on May 10, 2018. Some New York
Labor Law and contract claims remain in the case. Pressley has
withdrawn from the case, leaving Roberta Little as the sole
remaining named plaintiff in the Pressley Litigation. On July 12,
2019, the company filed its answer and counterclaim against
Little.
By Order dated May 8, 2020, the court denied class certification in
the Pressley case, denied class certification with respect to the
breach of contract and alleged unpaid usage claims, granted class
certification as to the New York Labor Law causes of action
asserted by Vretman, Palomares and Trotter, and declined to rule on
Wilhelmina's motions for summary judgment, denying them without
prejudice to be re-filed at a later date.
Wilhelmina is into fashion model management with its business
operations headquartered in New York City.
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Shanklin Breach of Contract Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2022, that a putative
class action lawsuit filed in in October 24, 2013 brought against
the company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and others,
including Louisa Raske, Carina Vretman, Grecia Palomares and
Michelle Griffin Trotter (Shanklin Litigation), in New York State
Supreme Court (New York County), is still pending.
The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of
contract and unjust enrichment, such as the handling and reporting
of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images.
On January 6, 2014, the company moved to dismiss an amended
complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other
defendants also filed motions to dismiss.
On August 11, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss as to
Wilhelmina and other of the model management defendants.
Separately, on March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin
Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General
bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims
asserted therein against the model management defendants, and
stating that the case "may involve matters in the public interest."
Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for
alleged breaches of the plaintiffs' management contracts with the
defendants, conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, and unjust enrichment. It also alleges that the plaintiff
models were at all relevant times employees, and not independent
contractors, of the model management defendants, and that
defendants violated the New York Labor Law in several respects,
including, among other things, by allegedly failing to pay the
models the minimum wages and overtime pay required thereunder, not
maintaining accurate payroll records, and not providing plaintiffs
with full explanations of how their wages and deductions therefrom
were computed. The Third Amended Complaint seeks certification of
the action as a class action, damages in an amount to be determined
at trial, plus interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other
relief as the court deems proper.
In October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to most
of the plaintiffs' claims. The Court entered a decision granting in
part and denying in part Wilhelmina's motion to dismiss on May 26,
2017. The Court dismissed three of the five New York Labor Law
causes of action, along with the conversion, breach of the duty of
good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment causes of action,
in their entirety and permitted only the breach of contract causes
of action, and some plaintiffs' remaining two New York Labor Law
causes of action to continue, within a limited time frame. The
plaintiffs and Wilhelmina each appealed, and the decision was
affirmed on May 24, 2018. On August 16, 2017, Wilhelmina filed its
Answer to the Third Amended Complaint.
On May 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation (except
Raske) and the Pressley Litigation filed motions for class
certification on their contract claims and the remaining New York
Labor Law Claims. On July 12, 2019, Wilhelmina filed its opposition
to the motions for class certification and filed a cross-motion for
summary judgment against Shanklin, Vretman, Palomares, Trotter and
Little, and a motion for summary judgment against Raske.
Wilhelmina is into fashion model management with its business
operations headquartered in New York City.
WINMARK CORPORATION: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Winmark Corporation.
The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Winmark Corporation, Case No.
1:22-cv-02816 (E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Winmark Corporation -- https://winmarkcorporation.com/ -- is an
American franchisor of five retail businesses that specialize in
buying and selling used goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
YASSO INC: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yasso, Inc. The case
is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Yasso, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03917
(S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Yasso -- https://yasso.com/ -- operates as a frozen yogurt brand
featuring stick bars.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
Z SUPPLY LLC: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Z Supply, LLC. The
case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Z
Supply, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02778-ENV-LB (E.D.N.Y., May 12,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Z Supply -- https://zsupplyclothing.com/ -- offers thoughtfully
designed, versatile clothing that empowers women through effortless
style and comfort for everyday wear and life.[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
[*] Class Actions v. FTSE 100 Cos. Up 10% in 2021, Research Shows
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Womack, writing for Law.com, reports that the number of class
action lawsuits faced by FTSE 100 companies globally has jumped by
10% over the past year.
Research by Thomson Reuters found that, currently, there are 170
class action claims against FTSE 100 companies -- up from 155 the
previous year.
The research also found that while class action lawsuits have
historically been most prevalent in the U.S., they are seen as an
increasing threat to corporates in the U.K.
Just under 47% of all class actions reported by the FTSE 100 were
in relation to claims for breaches of competition law, and 44% of
these are against banks or other financial services institutions.
Commenting on the findings, Thomson Reuters' Warsha Kalé said:
"The uptick in class action cases should be a cause for concern
among corporates. Involvement in this type of litigation can cost
businesses enormous sums of money, not to mention serious
reputational damage."
The research concluded that many expect to see a greater number of
claims being brought before English courts, due to recent consumer
rights legislation which enables classes to be certified on an
'opt-out' rather than 'opt-in' basis.
Separately, on May 16 Mishcon de Reya confirmed its involvement in
an 'opt-out' claim in London's High Court against Google and
DeepMind Technologies for the unlawful use of patients'
confidential medical records.
The claim, which has been brought on behalf of approximately 1.6
million individuals, relates to an arrangement formed in 2015
between Google and DeepMind and the Royal Free London NHS
Foundation Trust.
Mishcon will argue that the tech companies obtained and used a
substantial number of confidential medical records without
patients' knowledge or consent.
The action is being funded through a litigation finance agreement
with Litigation Capital Management, an alternative asset manager
specialising in dispute financing solutions.[GN]
[*] Malaysia Needs to Set Up Class Action Framework
---------------------------------------------------
M Shanmugam, writing for The Edge Malaysia, reports that based on
its latest annual report, Serba Dinamik Holdings Bhd has in excess
of 69,500 shareholders. The company's market capitalisation is now
down to RM315 million.
Serba's market cap was close to RM6 billion a year ago, when KPMG
PLT red-flagged its accounts and reported the matter -- as required
by law -- to the Securities Commission Malaysia (SC). KPMG's audit
alert was the start of Serba's fall from grace.
In the last one year, its shareholders have lost 95% of the value
of their shares in the company. The company is battling creditors
and needs to come up with a scheme to restructure its debts of
RM1.8 billion and US$42.4 million to lenders, including
bondholders.
Shareholders are sitting on a RM5.5 billion wipeout in paper
losses.
The four directors of Serba who were hauled up by SC for furnishing
false information have paid their fines totalling RM16 million,
which is a measly sum compared with the losses suffered by
minorities.
Bankers have filed a winding-up petition on Serba and are seeking
to appoint an interim liquidator to recover the debts. The company
has assets but it is unlikely that the bankers will be able to
fully recover the amount they lent to Serba.
As for the shareholders, they have little choice but to hold on to
their shares and hope that the company's fortunes improve, which is
almost impossible. Past examples show that companies with huge
accounting discrepancies do not recover and are finally delisted,
leaving shareholders with nothing.
Among the examples are Megan Media Bhd and Transmile Group Bhd,
whose shareholders were left holding worthless scrips. In both
cases, SC took criminal action against the principal officers and
directors.
In Megan Media's case, its former executive chairman was sentenced
to 18 months' jail and fined RM300,000. As for the Transmile case,
the principal perpetrator has gone missing after a 10-year trial,
in which he was found guilty.
In a nutshell, bankers and the authorities have avenues to seek
redress from companies and their principal officers and directors
for providing the capital markets with misleading information. But
shareholders generally do not have many options except for joint
legal action.
On this score, Malaysia and many other countries in this region
lack the framework to facilitate effective joint legal action
against companies and directors. They do not have laws that allow
for entities to come together and make up an ecosystem to
facilitate collective legal action such as class suits.
Some of the key components of such a framework are legislation that
allows for a collective legal action, a tribunal to ensure that the
framework is not abused by "ambulance chasers" and funders who are
prepared to bankroll the aggrieved parties.
At present, there are provisions in Malaysia's Companies Act 2016
that address the oppression of minority shareholders' rights.
However, the benefits -- if the minorities are successful -- are
accrued to the company and not the minority shareholders
themselves.
Therefore, the Companies Act is inadequate for protecting the
rights of the thousands of minority shareholders in listed
companies. This is important because the target of aggrieved
minorities is the listed company and its principal directors.
The other key components for facilitating a class action ecosystem
are funding avenues, laws that allow legal firms to intervene on
their own initiative and a tribunal to weed out the cases that do
not warrant class action.
In countries where there are laws that allow legal firms to take
charge of class actions, some law firms specialise in such suits.
The case would automatically involve all shareholders unless
individual shareholders opt out. This means the legal firm does not
need to reach out to shareholders before they commence a class
action suit.
For instance, as recently as March this year, Australia's Slater &
Gordon initiated a class action suit against The Star Entertainment
Group to seek compensation of A$1 billion for aggrieved minority
shareholders. The company is alleged to have misled banks and
regulators, to be involved in money laundering and to have failed
to operate ethically.
What is interesting is that the action by the legal firm -- if
successful -- will automatically benefit anyone who bought shares
in The Star Entertainment Group from March 2016 to March this year.
In most capital markets where a class action is among the preferred
ways to protect minority interests, there are funds prepared to
invest in what is described as "litigation funding" ventures. They
are prepared to fund shareholders and coordinate cases in class
action suits.
In return, they receive a percentage of the compensation if
successful.
Finally, there needs to be a tribunal or legislation that allows
the court to determine whether the case warrants class action.
Essentially, a tribunal or court will ensure that "ambulance
chasers" do not misuse the framework for their own benefit.
The capital markets with the most advanced class action framework
and ecosystem are the US, the UK, Australia and Europe. In these
markets, class suits are an avenue for minorities to recoup some of
their losses.
The biggest hurdle to any class suit action is the absence of
regulations that enable legal firms to take the leadership role for
such action and funding requirements, especially if the minorities
lose their case. What Malaysia needs, for starters, is a framework
that covers both aspects.
Introducing such a framework would encourage minority shareholders'
groups to initiate class action when they are saddled with losses
due to the misdeeds of the major shareholders. This will allow
minorities to take early measures to hit the pockets of the major
shareholders. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 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 ***