/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190523.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, May 23, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 103
Headlines
ADLER PLANETARIUM: Knowles Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
AETNA LIFE: Kazda Sues Over Denied Surgical Treatment
ALPINE TOWING: Jimenez Seeks Overtime Pay
ANDY'S BP: Lashbrook, Sweat Seek Unpaid Wages for Gas Attendants
APTCO LLC: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ARAMARK UNIFORM: Deluna Suit Removed to N.D. California
ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Bid to Dismiss Artex Clients' Suit Underway
ASHLEY MANOR: Andrews Files ADA Suit in Massachusetts
AUTOMATED HEALTH: Removes Hunter Suit to N.D. Illinois
AVON PRODUCTS: J&J Removes Myers Suit to C.D. California
BELFRY INNE: Andrews Files ADA Suit in Massachusetts
BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Set for July 2019
BOEING CO: June 10 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Klein Files Securities Suit over Surgical Mesh
BRAYTON BED: West Files ADA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
BRIXMOR PROPERTY: $19.5MM Settlement Balance Remains in Escrow
CALIFORNIA: Wein Reakty Files Class Suit v. Tax Agency
CARLISLE MCNELLIE: Faces Kraus Suit over Debt Collection
CBL & ASSOCIATES: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
CHEGG INC: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Filed
CHERRY RESTAURANT GROUP: Odom Seeks Minimum Wage for Dancers
CHICAGO RIDGE NURSING: Tolleson Sues over Stored Biometric Data
CITIGROUP INC: Class Cert. Bid Filed in Interest Rate Swaps Case
COLLECTION RECOVERY: Benvegna Sues over Debt Collection Practices
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid in Tennessee Suit Still Pending
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Summary Judgment Bid in Bowden Action Underway
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Writ of Certiorari Sought in Gibson Action
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Nevarez et al. Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
CRAFTED BEEKMAN: Jenkins Sues Over Illegally Retained Gratuities
CREDIT CORP: Kucur Sues over Debt Collection Practices
D'AGOSTINO'S PIZZA: Calderon Sues Over Illegal Payroll Practices
DYLAN'S CANDYBAR: Woodard Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
DYNAGAS LNG: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Fraud Classs Action Suit
DYNAGAS LNG: Entwistle & Cappucci Files Securities Class Action
EXTELL DEVELOPMENT: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FERROGLOBE PLC: 2 Class Suits Filed over Earnings Disclosure
FF AND A RESTAURANT: Barrera Suit Seeks Overtime Wages
FINDERS SEEKERS: Rivera Sues Over Automatic Service Renewal
FOOD AUTHORITY: House Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
FREDDIE MAC: Bid to Appeal Class Cert. Ruling Denied
FREDDIE MAC: Dismissal in Jacobs and Hindes Suit Affirmed
FREDDIE MAC: Suit Over Preferred Stock Purchase Deal Ongoing
GARDA CL SOUTHEAST: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Bailey Suit Says
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Continues to Defend Birnbaum Class Action
GENERAL MOTORS: Weiss Sues over Defective Chevrolet Drivelines
GOOGLE INC: AdTrader Suit in Process of Seeing Class Certification
GRUPO TELEVISA: Bid to Dismiss FIFA-Related Suit in NY Denied
HUMANA INSURANCE: Day Sues Under ERISA Over Denied Reimbursement
INDIVIOR PLC: Van Dorp Sues over Misleading Financial Reports
JACOB TRANSPORTATION: Appeals Ruling in Greene Suit to 9th Cir.
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Landrum Labor Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dahl Suit Remanded to California Superior Court
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Daigle Suit Remanded to California Superior Ct.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Damheiser Suit Moved to Calif. Superior Court
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Daniels Suit Remanded to Calif. Superior Court
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Darian Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Davenport Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Day Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Doss et al. Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Doyle et al Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Duggan Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dykes Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fearon Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Finch Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Heinisch Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hollis Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jacquez Sues over Baby Powder Products
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jones Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Bozicevic Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Brookins Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Calderon Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removed Davis Suit to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Bowman Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Brock Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Brown Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Brunton Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Burke Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Burroughs Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Call Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JONES FINANCIAL: Faces Watson et al. Labor Suit in Calif.
L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Merger Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
LCF INC: Honeycutt Seeks Damages, Back Pay for Club Dancers
LEPRINO FOODS: Bowles Suit Removed to E.D. California
LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Manopla Class Action
LIVEFREE EMERGENCY: Boehm Sues Over Unauthorized Calls Under TCPA
LYFT INC: Clapper Sues over Misrepresentation in IPO Documents
LYFT INC: Faces Lande Suit over Drop in Share Prices
MAPLEBEAR INC: Hayes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MCDERMOTT INT'L: No Lead Plaintiff Yet in Securities Suit
MCDERMOTT INT'L: Unit Still Defends Cantrell Class Suit
MDL 2741: 11 Suits Transferred to N.D. Ca. for Roundup Litigation
MONDELEZ INT'L: Proposed Consent Order Due May 28
MONSANTO CO: Accused by Holeman of Selling Defective Roundup(R)
MONSANTO CO: Brown Sues Over Roundup-Related Injuries
MONSANTO CO: Denson Sues for Roundup-Related Injuries and Damages
MONSANTO CO: Exposure to Roundup Resulted to Death, Hudson Says
MONSANTO CO: Faces Belcher Suit Alleging Roundup-Related Injuries
MONSANTO CO: Faces Pease Suit Alleging Roundup-Related Injuries
MONSANTO CO: Griffin Sues in Mo. Over Injuries Due to Roundup(R)
MONSANTO CO: Peterson Sues Over Roundup Exposure-Related Injuries
MONSANTO CO: Smith Sues Over Injuries From Roundup(R) Exposure
MONSANTO CO: Sued by Young-Beverly Over Roundup-Related Injuries
MONSANTO COMPANY: Bartley Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Dokken Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MULLEN & IANNARONE: Weinberg Sues over Debt Collection Practices
NATURE DELIVERED: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NCAA: Belcha Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
NCAA: Kubik Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
OI SA: Still Defends Class Suit Related to Customer Service Rules
OI SA: Suits Related to Re-Opening of Service Centers Ongoing
PACIFIC FERTILITY: Chart Appeals Decision in AB Suit to 9th Cir.
PACIFIC FERTILITY: MSO Appeals Decision in AB Suit to 9th Cir.
PACIFIC FERTILITY: Prelude Appeals Ruling in AB Suit to 9th Cir.
PARAMOUNT PAYMENT: Fabricant Sues over Autodialled Calls
PATRIOT ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces Verbis Labor Suit in Sacramento
PAYCHEX INC: Errickson Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages
PIER 1: Oral Arguments in Town of Davie Police Suit on June 12
PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING: Keivan Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
QUANTENNA COMMUNICATIONS: Clarke Files Suit Over Sale to ON
RAY REYNOLDS: Clark Sues over Misleading Credit Repair Services
RESORT CONFIRMATIONS: Wendell H. Stone Sues over Unsolicited Fax
RESTAURANTS BRANDS: Settlement in Class Suit v. TDL Approved
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Hinkle Suit
SEABOARD CORP: Continues to Defend Pork Buyers' Lawsuit
SHE IS ORGANIC: Vasquez-Cossio Sues Over Automatic Service Renewal
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Awaits Court's Approval of Settlement
SPARKS NETWORKS: Benabu Class Action over Auto-Renewal Concluded
STANDARD MARKET: Abusalem Sues Over Biometric Data Retention
TD AMERITRADE: Briefing on Appeal in Ford Suit Underway
TD AMERITRADE: Judge Recommends Preliminary Approval of Settlement
TENET HEALTHCARE: Class Cert. Bid Ruling in Maderazo Under Appeal
TESLA INC: Appeal Filed in Suit over Model 3 Vehicles
TESLA INC: Class Suit over Musk's Tweet Shelved
UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT: Morgan Sues over Robocalls
UXIN LIMITED: Class Suits over 2018 IPO Consolidated
VMWARE INC: Vasquez Sues over Employment Discrimination
WALDORF ASTORIA: Underpays Housekeepers, Taylor Suit Alleges
WEST CORP: Members Sue Over Excessive Benefits Plan Fees
WICKER PARK INN: Knowles Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
XUNLEI LIMITED: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
[*] Globalstar Expects to Get $3.7MM by 2020 from Settlement
*********
ADLER PLANETARIUM: Knowles Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against THE ADLER
PLANETARIUM. The case is styled as Carlton Knowles on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE ADLER
PLANETARIUM, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03246 (N.D. Ill., May 14,
2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Adler Planetarium is a public museum dedicated to the study of
astronomy and astrophysics.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
CK Lee, Esq.
Lee Litigation Group PLLC
30 E 39th St-2nd Fl
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
Email: cklee@leelitigation.com
AETNA LIFE: Kazda Sues Over Denied Surgical Treatment
-----------------------------------------------------
MICHALA KAZDA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-02512 (N.D. Cal., May 9, 2019) seeks to address
Aetna's practice of improperly denying claims for surgical
treatment of lipedema made by patients under Aetna plans.
Aetna Life Insurance Company is in the business of insuring and/or
administering health insurance plans (both fully insured and
self-insured), most of which are employer-sponsored and governed by
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"),
("Aetna plans").
According to the complaint, Aetna denies claims for the surgical
treatment of lipedema on the basis they are cosmetic and excluded.
Lipedema is a rare condition that is chronic, progressive, painful,
and immobilizing. It involves an abnormal buildup of adipose (fat)
tissue, usually in the lower body but sometimes in the arms. Often
misdiagnosed as obesity or lymphedema, lipedema primarily affects
women. Surgical treatment of
lipedema is not cosmetic because it treats the symptoms of
lipedema, pain and immobility. These are functional problems, not
cosmetic ones. Aetna has consistently and erroneously rejected
claims for the surgical treatment of lipedema as cosmetic, says the
complaint.
Plaintiff was at all relevant times covered under an employee
benefit plan regulated by ERISA and pursuant to which Plaintiff is
entitled to health care benefits.
Aetna administers and makes benefit determinations related to ERISA
health care plans around the country.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
ROBERT S. GIANELLI, ESQ.
JOSHUA S. DAVIS, ESQ.
ADRIAN J. BARRIO, ESQ.
GIANELLI & MORRIS, A Law Corporation
550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 489-1600
Fax: (213) 489-1611
Email: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com
joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com
adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com
ALPINE TOWING: Jimenez Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Alpine Towing, Inc.
(ATI) and Larry Saravia for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA). The case is captioned VICTOR JIMENEZ, and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff(s), v.
ALPINE TOWING, INC. a Florida corporation, and LARRY SARAVIA,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-21643-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
April 26, 2019). During his employment, Plaintiff Victor Jimenez
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, alternating each week
between working an average of 60 hours per week and 72 hours per
week. However, ATI allegedly failed to compensate Plaintiff, and
all others similarly situated, at the statutorily prescribed
overtime rate of time-and-one-half his regular hourly rate for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Moreover, Defendants also
made certain deductions from Plaintiff's wages as an attempt to
evade the overtime requirements of the FLSA
Founded by Larry Saravia, ATI operates and specializes in
performing towing services to automobiles. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
Melissa Scott, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
ANDY'S BP: Lashbrook, Sweat Seek Unpaid Wages for Gas Attendants
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Andy's BP, Inc. and
Self-Serve Petroleum, Inc. for violations of the California Labor
Code, the Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 7-2001 and the
Business and Professions Code. The case is captioned CORRINE
LASHBROOK and JOSHUA SWEAT, on behalf of themselves, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs, vs. ANDY'S
BP, INC. and SELF-SERVE PETROLEUM, INC., California corporations,
Andy Saberi and Thomas I. Saberi, individuals, and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-CIV-02344 (Cal. Super., Cty.
of San Francisco, April 25, 2019).
Plaintiff Corrine Lashbrook and Joshua Sweat allege that Defendants
are liable to them and to other similarly situated current and
former California-based gas station attendants for unpaid wages and
other related relief. Their claims are based on Defendants' alleged
failures to: (1) provide all meal periods; (2) provide all rest
periods; (3) pay all wages for all hours worked; (4) pay
appropriate wages for all overtime hours worked, (5) provide
accurate wage statements, (6) reimburse employees' business
expenses, (7) timely pay final wages upon termination of
employment, and (8) fairly compete. Accordingly, Plaintiffs now
seek to recover unpaid wages and related relief through this class
action.
Andy's BP, Inc., and Self-Serve Petroleum, Inc., are corporations
organized and existing under the laws of California. Andy's BP,
Inc's principal, executive office is located in South San
Francisco, and Self-Serve Petroleum, Inc.'s is located in San
Francisco. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig Diamond, Esq.
Erik J. Christensen, Esq.
Diamond Baker Mitchell, LLP
149 Crown Point Ct, Suite B,
Grass Valley, CA 95945
Telephone: (530) 272-9977
Facsimile: (530) 272-8463
E-mail: cdiamond@diamondbaker.com
echristensen@diamondbaker.com
APTCO LLC: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against APTCO, LLC. The case
is styled as FERNANDO RIVERA CARDONA AKA FERNANDO RIVERA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff v. APTCO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-101323 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 14, 2019).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited".
APTCO, LLC manufactures Expandable Polystyrene which is a rigid
cellular plastic that was developed for food containers and general
packaging applications.[BN]
ARAMARK UNIFORM: Deluna Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned RAUL DELUNA, as an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ARAMARK UNIFORM &
CAREER APPAREL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CU-19-00059 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Benito to the United States District Court for the
Nothern District of California on May 9, 2019, and assigned Case
No. 5:19-cv-02514.
The Complaint contained the following six (6) purported claims: (1)
failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay all wages due at
time of separation; (3) failure to authorize and permit rest
periods; (4) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements;
(5) violations of unfair competition law; and (6) imposition of
civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA") on behalf of alleged "aggrieved employees" for
"Defendants' violations of Labor Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
ERIC MECKLEY, ESQ.
KAREN Y. CHO, ESQ.
REBECCA N. FRIEDMAN, ESQ.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
Phone: 415.442.1000
Facsimile: 415.442.1001
Email: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com
karen.cho@morganlewis.com
rebecca.friedman@morganlewis.com
ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Bid to Dismiss Artex Clients' Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the defendants in the
class action suit initiated by micro-captive clients of Artex Risk
Solutions, Inc., have filed motions to dismiss to the case.
On December 7, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company, its subsidiary Artex Risk Solutions, Inc. (which the
company refers to as Artex) and other defendants including Tribeca,
in the District of Arizona. An amended complaint was filed on March
29, 2019.
The named plaintiffs are micro-captive clients of Artex or Tribeca
and their related entities and owners who had IRC Section 831(b)
tax benefits disallowed by the IRS. The complaint attempts to state
various causes of action and alleges that the defendants defrauded
the plaintiffs by marketing and managing micro-captives with the
knowledge that the captives did not constitute bona fide insurance
and thus would not qualify for tax benefits.
The named plaintiffs are seeking to certify a class of all persons
who were assessed back taxes, penalties or interest by the IRS as a
result of their ownership of or involvement in an IRS Section
831(b) micro-captive formed or managed by Artex or Tribeca during
the time period January 1, 2005 to the present.
The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought by the
named plaintiffs or the putative class. The defendants have filed
motions to dismiss, arguing that the case should be put into
arbitration and that the amended complaint fails to state a claim.
Arthur J. Gallagher said, "We will vigorously defend against the
lawsuit. Litigation is inherently uncertain, however, and it is not
possible for us to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter and
the financial impact to us."
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., together with its subsidiaries, provides
insurance brokerage, consulting, and third party claims settlement
and administration services to entities in the United States and
internationally. The company offers its services through a network
of correspondent insurance brokers and consultants. Arthur J.
Gallagher & Co. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Rolling
Meadows, Illinois.
ASHLEY MANOR: Andrews Files ADA Suit in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ASHLEY MANOR LLC. The
case is styled as Victor Andrews, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASHLEY MANOR LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11109 (D. Mass., May 14, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Ashley Manor, LLC operates as a care center. The Company offers
assisted living, residential care, and alzheimer and dementia
health solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
73 West Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (212) 465-1188
Email: cklee@leelitigation.com
AUTOMATED HEALTH: Removes Hunter Suit to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of EVELYN HUNTER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOMATED
HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the
lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois, County of
Cook (Case No. 2019CH02784) to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on April 15, 2019. The clerk of court
for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02529. The case is assigned to Robert W. Gettleman.
Automated Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1979. The company's
line of business includes providing health and allied services.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jenny R. Goltz, Esq.
Corey T. Hickman, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1800
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 474-7900
Facsimile: (312) 474-7898
E-mail: jgoltz@cozen.com
chickman@cozen.com
AVON PRODUCTS: J&J Removes Myers Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson removed the case, DOREEN MYERS, the Plaintiffs,
vs. AVON PRODUCTS, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. JCCP 4674
/ BC720136, from Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
April 29, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03563 to the proceeding.
On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada,
Inc., filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a
reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et
al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware. Since the Chapter 11 Case was
commenced, the Debtors have remained as debtors in possession under
11 U.S.C. section 1101 and have the rights, powers, and duties set
out in U.S.C. sections 1107 and 1108.
The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.
Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.
Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for the Defendants:
Alexander G. Calfo, Esq.
Julia E. Romano, Esq.
Jennifer T. Stewart, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213 443 4355
Facsimile: 213 443 4310
E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com
jromano@kslaw.com
jstewart@kslaw.com
BELFRY INNE: Andrews Files ADA Suit in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BELFRY INNE & BISTRO,
INC. The case is styled as Victor Andrews, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELFRY INNE & BISTRO,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11108 (D. Mass., May 14, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Belfry Inn & Bistro provides a cape cod bed and breakfast, lodging
accommodations for a weekend getaway and is a restaurant on Cape
Cod.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
73 West Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (212) 465-1188
Email: cklee@leelitigation.com
BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Set for July 2019
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court has
established a briefing schedule to consider a motion to dismiss a
class action lawsuit. A hearing on the request will be held July
2019.
On May 25, 2018, plaintiffs Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger (on
behalf of themselves and the purported class, Plaintiffs) initiated
a purported class action in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the Court) against the following defendants: the
Partnership, Boardwalk GP, LP (Boardwalk GP), Boardwalk GP, LLC and
Boardwalk Pipelines Holding Corp. (BPHC) (together, Defendants),
regarding the potential exercise by Boardwalk GP of its right to
purchase the issued and outstanding common units of the Partnership
not already owned by Boardwalk GP or its affiliates (Purchase
Right).
On June 25, 2018, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, subject to
the approval of the Court (the Proposed Settlement).
Under the terms of the Proposed Settlement, the lawsuit would be
dismissed, and related claims against the Defendants would be
released by the Plaintiffs, if BPHC, the sole member of the general
partner of Boardwalk GP, elected to cause Boardwalk GP to exercise
its right to purchase the issued and outstanding common units of
the Partnership for a cash purchase price, as determined by the
Partnership's Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited
Partnership, as amended (the Limited Partnership Agreement), and
gave notice of such election as provided in the Limited Partnership
Agreement within a period specified by the Proposed Settlement.
On June 29, 2018, Boardwalk GP elected to exercise the Purchase
Right and gave notice within the period specified by the Proposed
Settlement. On July 18, 2018, Boardwalk GP completed the purchase
of the Partnership's common units pursuant to the Purchase Right.
On September 28, 2018, the Court denied approval of the Proposed
Settlement. On February 11, 2019, a substitute verified class
action complaint was filed in this proceeding. The Court has
established a briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss and a
hearing has been scheduled in July 2019.
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates integrated natural gas and natural gas liquids and other
hydrocarbons (NGLs) pipeline and storage systems in the United
States. The company operates natural gas pipeline systems in the
Gulf Coast region, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, as well as the
Midwestern states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, and
Ohio; and NGLs pipelines and storage facilities in Louisiana and
Texas. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP was founded in 2005 and is
headquartered in Houston, Texas. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP is
a subsidiary of Boardwalk Pipelines Holding Corp.
BOEING CO: June 10 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA) from
January 8, 2019 through March 21, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period") of the June 10, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in the case.
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Boeing investors under the
federal securities laws.
To join the Boeing class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1547.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN 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.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Boeing's 737 MAX airplanes were not as safe as previous
models, therefore Boeing included undisclosed "hacks" created by
engineering compromises and the lack of safety features which
Boeing sold as "optional" add-ons which were designed to help
address these safety concerns; (2) most airlines did not purchase
these safety "options"; (3) the Federal Aviation Administration
granted Boeing its own oversight and certification of Boeing's new
flight control system, or Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation
Systems, which was a clear conflict of interest as Boeing was
rushing the 737 MAX airplanes to market; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, Boeing's public statement were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
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 10,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1547.html
Contact:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Website: www.rosenlegal.com
E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Klein Files Securities Suit over Surgical Mesh
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Boston Scientific
Corporation, Michael F. Mahoney, and Daniel J. Brennan for
violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The case is
captioned STEVE KLEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
MICHAEL F. MAHONEY, and DANIEL J. BRENNAN, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-03642 (S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2019).
Plaintiff Steve Klein brings this action on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Boston Scientific
securities between Feb. 26, 2015, and April 16, 2019. He accuses
Defendants of making materially false and misleading statements
regarding its business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, he alleges that the Defendants have made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Boston
Scientific's surgical mesh products indicated for the transvaginal
repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) were unsafe. Defendants have
also failed to disclose that the continued marketing and sales of
these devices in the United States was unlikely to be sustainable.
They have also failed to report to the investors that company had
sold vaginal mesh implants containing counterfeit or adulterated
resin products imported from China and that this foregoing conduct
are subjected the company to a heightened risk of regulatory
scrutiny and/or government investigations.
Boston Scientific was founded in 1979 and is headquartered in
Marlborough, Massachusetts. The company develops, manufactures, and
markets medical devices for use in various interventional medical
specialties worldwide. Its Urology and Women's Health business
segment develops, manufactures and sells devices to treat various
urological and gynecological disorders, including transvaginal
surgical mesh products indicated for POP. Boston Scientific's
common stock trades in an efficient market on the New York Stock
Exchange under the ticker symbol BSX. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
BRAYTON BED: West Files ADA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BRAYTON BED AND
BREAKFAST, LLC. The case is styled as Mary West on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRAYTON BED
AND BREAKFAST, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00713-NJ (E.D.
Wis., May 14, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Brayton Bed & Breakfast is a boutique B&B offering modern rooms,
meeting facilities and amenities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
CK Lee, Esq.
Lee Litigation Group PLLC
30 E 39th St-2nd Fl
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
Email: cklee@leelitigation.com
BRIXMOR PROPERTY: $19.5MM Settlement Balance Remains in Escrow
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brixmor Property Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that a settlement
balance of $19.5 million remains in escrow pending final class
distribution in the lawsuit initiated by Westchester Putnam
Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefit Funds.
On December 13, 2017, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted final approval of the
settlement of the previously disclosed putative securities class
action complaint filed in March 2016 by the Westchester Putnam
Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefit Funds related to
the review conducted by the Audit Committee of the Board of
Directors.
Pursuant to the approved settlement, without any admission of
liability, the Company will pay $28.0 million to settle the claims.
This amount is within the coverage amount of the Company's
applicable insurance policies and has been funded into escrow by
the insurance carriers. The settlement provides for the release of,
among others, the Company, its subsidiaries, and their respective
current and former officers, directors and employees from the
claims that were or could have been asserted in the class action
litigation.
During the year ended December 31, 2018, $8.5 million of the
settlement amount was released from escrow per the court approved
settlement agreement for the payment of plaintiff's legal fees. The
remaining settlement balance of $19.5 million remains in escrow
pending final class distribution.
As of March 31, 2019, the $19.5 million amount is included in
Accounts payable, accrued expenses and other liabilities in the
Company's unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Because
the settlement amount is within the coverage amount of the
Company's applicable insurance policies, the Company accrued a
receivable of $19.5 million as of March 31, 2019.
This amount is included in Accounts receivable, net in the
Company's unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Brixmor Property Group, Inc. operates as a real estate investment
trust. The Company owns and operates grocery anchored community and
neighborhood shopping centers. Brixmor Property Group serves
customers in the United States. The company is based in New York,
New York.
CALIFORNIA: Wein Reakty Files Class Suit v. Tax Agency
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE
TAX BOARD A CALIFORNIA AGENCY. The case is styled as WEIN REAKTY,
LLC INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD A CALIFORNIA AGENCY,
Defendant, Case No. CGC19576007 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., May 14, 2019).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints".
The California Franchise Tax Board collects state personal income
tax and corporate income tax of California. It is part of the
California Government Operations Agency.[BN]
CARLISLE MCNELLIE: Faces Kraus Suit over Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Carlisle, McNellie,
Rini, Kramer & Ulrich Co., L.P.A. for violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The case is captioned Sheila and
Thomas Kraus, Plaintiffs, vs. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer &
Ulrich Co., L.P.A., Case No. 2:19-cv-01589-JLG-KAJ (S.D. Ohio,
April 24, 2019). Plaintiffs accuse the Defendant of violating FDCPA
by failing to effectively convey the identity of the current
creditor in Defendant's initial communication with them or in
writing within five days thereafter.
Carlisle McNellie Rini Kramer & Ulrich Co LPA is a Cleveland,
Ohio-based law firm that offers legal consulting services in areas
such as real estate, general civil practice, mortgages,
corporations, partnerships, and bankruptcies. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ira A. Richardson, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF IRA RICHARDSON, PLLC
514 Persimmon Lane
Bridgeport, WV 26330
Telephone; (888) 595-9111
Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
E-mail: IRichardson@consumerlawinfo.com
CBL & ASSOCIATES: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. (NYSE:
CBL) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the
securities of CBL between November 8, 2017 through March 26, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose in its SEC filings that the
Company was the target of a class action suit that could result in
tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars in
liability. The Complaint alleges that Defendants completely
ignored their disclosure obligation, motivated by a desire to avoid
bad publicity surrounding their dishonest nature and their
dishonest conduct. When the truth was revealed, CBL shares
materially declined in price, injuring Plaintiff and the other
members of the proposed Class.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of CBL
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the July
16, 2019 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm.
If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this
class action please contact:
Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
Gainey McKenna & Egleston
Telephone: (212) 983-1300
Website: www.gme-law.com
E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]
CHEGG INC: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Filed
----------------------------------------------
Chegg, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated
Shah and Kurland cases have filed a notice of Voluntary Dismissal
Without Prejudice.
On September 27, 2018, a purported securities class action
captioned Shah v. Chegg, Inc. et al. (Case No. 3:18-cv-05956-CRB)
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the company and its CEO.
The complaint was filed by a purported Company shareholder and
alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5, based on
allegedly misleading statements regarding the Company's security
measures to protect users' data and related internal controls and
procedures, as well as the company's second quarter 2018 financial
results.
The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's securities between July 30, 2018 and September 25, 2018.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, as well as
interest, costs and attorneys' fees.
On November 15, 2018, a second purported securities class action
captioned Kurland v. Chegg, Inc. et al. (Case No.
3:18-cv-06714-CRB) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the company, its CEO, and
its CFO. The Shah and Kurland actions contain similar allegations,
assert similar claims, and seek similar relief, and on January 24,
2019, the Court consolidated the two actions.
On March 29, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Lead Plaintiff's notice
of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
Chegg, Inc. operates direct-to-student learning platform that
supports students on their journey from high school to college and
into their career with tools designed to help them pass their test,
pass their class, and save money on required materials. Chegg, Inc.
was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Santa Clara,
California.
CHERRY RESTAURANT GROUP: Odom Seeks Minimum Wage for Dancers
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Cherry Restaurant
Group of Huntsville, LLC for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act. The case is captioned SHEILA ODOM, On Behalf of Herself and
All Other Similarly Situated Individuals, PLAINTIFF, v. CHERRY
RESTAURANT GROUP OF HUNTSVILLE, LLC D/B/A THE CHERRY, DEFENDANT,
Case No. 5:19-cv-00634-AKK (N.D. Ala., April 26, 2019). Plaintiff
Sheila Odom alleges that Cherry has misclassified her and other
exotic dancers as independent contractors and failed to pay minimum
wage compensation to them. In addition, Cherry allegedly charged
unlawful kickbacks to Odom and other exotic dancers.
Cherry Restaurant Group of Huntsville, LLC is a limited liability
company operating and holding itself out to the public as an exotic
dance club featuring nude and semi-nude female exotic dancers known
as The Cherry and located at 6400 University Drive Huntsville,
Alabama. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy M. McFalls, Esq.
HODGES TRIAL LAWYERS, P.C.
320 East Clinton Avenue East
Huntsville, AL 35801
Telephone: (256) 539-3100
E-mail: tmmcfalls@notanaccident.com
- and -
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com
CHICAGO RIDGE NURSING: Tolleson Sues over Stored Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Chicago Ridge
Nursing Center, LLC for violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The case is captioned DANIELLE
TOLLESON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO RIDGE NURSING CENTER, L.L.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH05157 (Ill. Cir., April 23, 2019).
Plaintiff Danielle Tolleson accuses Chicago Ridge Nursing Center,
LLC of unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of
sensitive, private, and personal biometric data. During her
employment, Plaintiff Danielle Tolleson was required to scan her
finger to the biometric timekeeping system. However, Defendant has
no written policy that discloses its retention schedule and/ or
guidelines for retaining and then permanently destroying biometric
identifiers and information.
Chicago Ridge Nursing Center is a senior living provider located at
10602 Southwest Highway, Chicago Ridge, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104
Telephone: (314) 833-4825
E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com
plesko@pwcklegal.com
CITIGROUP INC: Class Cert. Bid Filed in Interest Rate Swaps Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the putative class
plaintiffs in the action captioned IN RE: INTEREST RATE SWAPS
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, have moved for class certification and
appointment of class counsel.
The request was filed February 20, 2019.
On March 13, 2019, the district court granted in part and denied in
part the putative class plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a
fourth consolidated class action complaint.
Additional information concerning this action is publicly available
in court filings under the docket number 16-MD-2704 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Engelmayer, J.).
Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.
COLLECTION RECOVERY: Benvegna Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY BENVEGNA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLLECTION RECOVERY SERVICES,
INC.; and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-02205-SJF-GRB (E.D.N.Y., April 15, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The
case is assigned to Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein and referred to
Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown.
Collection Recovery Services, Inc. is an accounts receivable
management service and full collection agency. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
KLEINMAN LLC
626 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
Telephone: (516) 522-2621
Facsimile: (888) 522-1692
E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid in Tennessee Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the motion for class
certification of a consolidated lawsuit in Tennessee remains
pending.
Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; namely,
Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community Health Systems,
Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis Firefighters
Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed
June 21, 2011.
All three seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between July 27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and
allege that misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated
prices for the Company's common stock.
In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes
and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead plaintiffs/lead
plaintiffs' counsel. In lieu of ruling on the Company's motion to
dismiss, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file a first amended
consolidated class action complaint, which was filed on October 5,
2015.
The Company's motion to dismiss was filed on November 4, 2015 and
oral argument was held on April 11, 2016. The Company's motion to
dismiss was granted on June 16, 2016 and on June 27, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals. The matter was heard on May 3, 2017.
On December 13, 2017, the Sixth Circuit reversed the trial court's
dismissal of the case and remanded it to the District Court. The
Company filed a renewed partial motion to dismiss on February 9,
2018, which was denied by the District Court on September 24, 2018.
The Company also filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the
United States Supreme Court on April 18, 2018 seeking review of the
Sixth Circuit's decision. The United States Supreme Court denied
the petition for a writ of certiorari on October 1, 2018.
Plaintiff’s motion for class certification is pending.
The Company believes this consolidated matter is without merit and
will vigorously defend this case.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly
traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading
operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities
in communities across the country. The company provide healthcare
services through the hospitals that we own and operate and
affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets
throughout the United States. The company is based in Franklin,
Tennessee.
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Summary Judgment Bid in Bowden Action Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a purported class action suit entitled, Bowden,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Ruston Louisiana Hospital Company, LLC d/b/a Northern Louisiana
Medical Center.
This case is a purported class action lawsuit filed in the 3rd
Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana and served on
September 7, 2016, claiming the company's affiliated Ruston,
Louisiana hospital violated payor contracts by allegedly improperly
asserting hospital liens against third-party tortfeasors and
seeking class certifications for any similarly situated plaintiffs.
The company's motion for summary judgment is pending, as is
plaintiff's motion for class certification. Neither motion is
currently set for hearing.
Community Health said "We believe these claims are without merit
and will vigorously defend the case."
Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly
traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading
operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities
in communities across the country. The company provide healthcare
services through the hospitals that we own and operate and
affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets
throughout the United States. The company is based in Franklin,
Tennessee.
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Writ of Certiorari Sought in Gibson Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that company has filed an
application for writ of certiorari in the case, Gibson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Healthcare of Leesville, Inc. d/b/a Byrd Regional Medical
Center, to the Louisiana Supreme Court.
This case is a purported class action lawsuit filed in the 30th
Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana and served on
August 3, 2016, claiming the company's formerly affiliated
Leesville, Louisiana hospital violated payor contracts by allegedly
improperly asserting hospital liens against third-party tortfeasors
and seeking class certifications for any similarly situated
plaintiffs.
The court has certified a class and denied the company's motion for
summary judgment. The company appealed both rulings to the
Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial
court's decisions on March 7, 2019. The company filed an
application for writ of certiorari to the Louisiana Supreme Court.
Community Health said, "We believe these claims are without merit
and will vigorously defend the case."
Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly
traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading
operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities
in communities across the country. The company provide healthcare
services through the hospitals that we own and operate and
affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets
throughout the United States. The company is based in Franklin,
Tennessee.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Nevarez et al. Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SILVERIO NEVAREZ, individually, EFREN CORREA, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 25,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV10017 (Filed on March 25, 2019), was
transferred from the Superior Court of California for the County of
Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on April 26, 2019. The removal was based on
the grounds that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds
$5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs and that there is an
existing minimal diversity. The United States District Court for
the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03454
to the proceeding.
In this complaint, Plaintiff Silverio Nevarez and Efren Correa
assert six causes of action: failure to pay overtime wages due;
failure to provide itemized wage statement to employees; failure to
pay upon termination or quitting employee; failure to pay minimum
wages; unfair business practice; and claim for a civil penalty.
Costco is incorporated under the laws of the state of Washington,
with its principal place of business in Washington and with its
headquarters in Issaquah, Washington. The company operates a chain
of membership-only warehouse clubs that sells electronics,
computers, furniture, outdoor living, appliances, jewelry and more.
[BN]
Attorneys for Defendant:
David D. Kadue, Esq.
David D. Jacobson, Esq.
Jinouth D. Vasquez Santos, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
E-mail: dkadue@seyfarth.com
djacobson@seyfarth.com
jvasquezsantos@seyfarth.com
CRAFTED BEEKMAN: Jenkins Sues Over Illegally Retained Gratuities
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN JENKINS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CRAFTED BEEKMAN, LLC d/b/a CRAFTED at the BEEKMAN
HOTEL and TOM COLICCHIO, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04207-GHW
(S.D. N.Y., May 9, 2019) is a "wage and hour" class action in which
Plaintiff claims Defendants, his employers, illegally retained
substantial portions of the gratuities of Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees of Defendants.
According to the complaint, the Defendants received voluntary
gratuities from banquet customers above and beyond the billed
charges for the customers' events. These voluntary gratuities were
not distributed by Defendants to Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees but were instead kept by individuals in management,
including Defendant Colicchio's niece, Jennifer Colicchio. The
Defendants provided invoices to banquet customers at each event
that did not provide any further explanation of the nature of the
charge, and the invoices did not state that the "Administrative
Fee" was not a gratuity. Further, on receipts given to customers
together with paid invoices, the charge was explicitly referred to
as a "Service Charge(s)."
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees sustained substantial
losses from Defendants' withholding of these gratuities. Defendants
knew that retaining Plaintiff's and Class members' tips would
economically injure Plaintiff and the Class members, and violated
state and federal laws, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Kevin Jenkins has been employed by Defendants as a server
since in or about May 2018.
Defendant Crafted Beekman LLC provides banquet catering at the
Beekman Hotel, located at 123 Nassau Street, New York, NY
10038.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
JOSEPH KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 688-5640
Fax: (212) 688-2548
CREDIT CORP: Kucur Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------
SULEYMAN KUCUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT CORP. SOLUTIONS INC. d/b/a TASMAN
CREDIT, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02024-RJD-SMG (E.D.N.Y., April
8, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Raymond J.
Dearie and referred to Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold.
Credit Corp. Solutions Inc. d/b/a Tasman Credit provides collection
and credit management services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Silver, Esq.
237 Club Dr
Woodmere, NY 11598
Telephone: (718) 855-3834
Facsimile: (718) 534-0057
E-mail: silverbankruptcy@gmail.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Scott Evan Wortman, Esq.
Hilary Felice Korman, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
405 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10174
Telephone: (212) 885-5359
E-mail: swortman@blankrome.com
hkorman@blankrome.com
D'AGOSTINO'S PIZZA: Calderon Sues Over Illegal Payroll Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Olga Calderon, Cesar Avalos, Roman Carrillo, Raul Escobar,
Florentino Aranda, Pedro Aranda, Manuel Chimborazo, and Miguel
Molina on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. D'AGOSTINO'S PIZZA WRIGLEYVILLE, INC., D'AGOSTINO'S
PIZZERIA II, INC., JOSEPH D'AGOSTINO, SCOTT D'AGOSTINO, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-03136 (N.D. Ill., May 9, 2019) seek to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages owed as a result of the
Defendants' illegal payroll practices.
The Defendants pay their pizza delivery drivers on a per-delivery
basis, compensating them just $3.00 per delivery, regardless of how
many of hours they work and regardless of how many deliveries they
perform each day, says the complaint. Additionally, the Defendants
engage in a scheme in which they pay their cooks (using a payroll
check) at their regular hourly rate for their first forty hours of
work and pay them in cash (at the same regular hourly rate rate)
for all hours in excess of forty in a workweek, the complaint
relates.
Plaintiffs Calderon, Avalos, Carrillo, Florentino Aranda and Pedro
Aranda worked as delivery drivers, and Plaintiffs Chimborazo and
Molina as cooks at D'Agostino's Wrigleyville.
Defendants operate D'Agostino's pizza restaurants that are located
in the City of Chicago and the Chicago suburbs.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
Matthew G. Novaria, Esq.
HUGHES, SOCOL, PIERS, RESNICK &DYM, LTD.
70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: 312-580-0100
DYLAN'S CANDYBAR: Woodard Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Dylan's Candybar
LLC for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act. The case is captioned DAMIEN WOODARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. DYLAN'S
CANDYBAR LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH05158 (Ill. Cir., Cook
Cty., April 23, 2019).
Plaintiff Damien Woodard accuses the Defendant of unlawful
collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's and the
proposed Class's sensitive, private, and personal biometric data.
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant captured, collected, received
through trade, and/ or otherwise obtained and biometric identifiers
or biometric information of their Illinois employees, like
Plaintiff, without properly obtaining the written executed release,
and without making the required disclosures concerning the
collection, storage, use, or destruction of biometric identifiers
or information.
Dylan's Candybar is an Illinois limited liability company with a
place of business located at 801 Adlai Stevenson Drive Springfield,
Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Telephone: (314) 833-4825
E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com
plesko@pwcklegal.com
DYNAGAS LNG: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Fraud Classs Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of all investors that purchased Dynagas LNG
Partners LP (NYSE: DLNG) securities between February 16, 2018 and
March 21, 2019 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until July 16,
2019 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and omitted
material adverse facts to conceal the unfavorable terms of the
company's long-term contracts on its liquid natural gas ships,
Arctic Aurora and Ob River, and its resulting inability to sustain
its quarterly distributions. As a result of defendants' false and
misleading statements and omissions, Dynagas securities traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Such
inflation was removed when it was revealed that the Arctic Aurora
and the Ob River were commencing employment under new extended
charter contracts which were at lower rates compared to the
previous charter contracts, thereby undermining the company's
ability to make future distributions.
If you purchased Dynagas securities, 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, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Phone: (212) 355-4648
Website: www.bespc.com
Email: investigations@bespc.com
fortunato@bespc.com
walker@bespc.com [GN]
DYNAGAS LNG: Entwistle & Cappucci Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP on May 18, 2019, announced it has filed a
securities class action lawsuit on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased securities of Dynagas LNG Partners LP ("Dynagas" or
the "Company") during the period from February 16, 2018 through
March 21, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period" and the"Class"). The
case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "Court"), Case No.1:19-cv-04512, against
Dynagas, certain associated entities and certain of the Company's
senior executives (collectively, "Defendants").
The class action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that,
during the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and omitted material adverse facts to conceal
the unfavorable terms of the Company's long-term contracts on its
liquid natural gas ships, Arctic Aurora and Ob River, and its
resulting inability to sustain its quarterly distributions. As a
result of the Defendants' false and misleading statements and
omissions, Dynagas securities traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period. Such inflation was removed when it
was revealed that the Arctic Aurora and the Ob River were
commencing employment under new extended charter contracts which
were at lower rates compared to the previous charter contracts,
thereby undermining the Company's ability to make future
distributions. The complaint seeks an award of damages, and
interest thereon, to plaintiff and other Class members.
If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this matter, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than July 16, 2019. Any
member of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as a lead
plaintiff in this matter through counsel of their choice, or they
may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the Class.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests please contact:
Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
Robert N. Cappucci, Esq.
ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
Phone: (212) 894-7200
Email: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com
rcappucci@entwistle-law.com [GN]
EXTELL DEVELOPMENT: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Extell Development
Company. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett Individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Extell
Development Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04400 (S.D. N.Y.,
May 14, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Extell Development Company is a New York-based company that
develops and invests in real estate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
Lipsky Lowe LLP
630 Third Avenue
Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
FERROGLOBE PLC: 2 Class Suits Filed over Earnings Disclosure
------------------------------------------------------------
Ferroglobe PLC said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has been
named as a defendant in two class action lawsuits related to its
public disclosures prior to its November 26, 2018 third quarter
earnings press release.
The company understand that, on January 22, 2019, a claimed
shareholder plaintiff named Lance Treankler filed a putative class
action complaint against Ferroglobe PLC, CEO Pedro Larrea and CFO
Phillip Murnane in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of
New York in Manhattan, seeking money damages for alleged violations
of U.S. securities laws.
Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that certain of the Company's public
disclosures prior to its November 26, 2018 third quarter earnings
press release were materially false or misleading when made and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.
The company further understand that, on March 19, 2019, another
claimed shareholder plaintiff, Jam-Wood Holdings LLC, filed a
substantially identical complaint in the same court.
Neither plaintiff has effected service of process, such that no
response from the defendants is yet due.
The Company and the individual defendants believe these plaintiffs'
allegations are of no merit and intend to defend themselves
vigorously, if and when the plaintiffs effect service of process,
including by moving to dismiss the subject complaints at the
appropriate time.
Ferroglobe PLC operates in the silicon and specialty metals
industry in the United States, Europe, and internationally. The
company was formerly known as VeloNewco Limited and changed its
name to Ferroglobe PLC in December 2015. The company was founded in
2015 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom. Ferroglobe
PLC is a subsidiary of Grupo Villar Mir, S.A.U.
FF AND A RESTAURANT: Barrera Suit Seeks Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Barrera and Abner Joram Orrego, individually and on behalf
all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. F F and A
Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Pollos A La Brasa Marion, Luis Figueroa,
Rosalba Arevalo, and Robert Cordova, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02747 (E.D. N.Y., May 9, 2019) is an action brought by
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of similarly
situated employees, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), arising from
Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies,
patterns and/or practices.
The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern
and practice of failing to pay their employees, including
Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek and spread of hours, as well as failing to provide their
employees, including Plaintiffs, with wage notice at the time of
hiring and wage statements, says the complaint.
Plaintiffs were employed as a waiter and a bus boy by Defendants'
Latin-style restaurant.
F F and A Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Pollos a La Brasa Marion, is a
domestic business corporation organization engaged in interstate
commerce.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lorena P. Duarte, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
136-20 38th Ave., Suite #10G
Flushing, NY 11354
Phone: (718) 353-8522
Email: lduarte@hanglaw.com
FINDERS SEEKERS: Rivera Sues Over Automatic Service Renewal
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRIANNA RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FINDERS SEEKERS, LLC, a Utah limited
liability company; and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-04053 (C.D. Cal., May 9, 2019) is a class action on behalf
of Plaintiff and a class of others similarly situated consisting of
all persons in California who, within the applicable statute of
limitations period up to and including the date of judgment in this
action, purchased subscriptions for products from the Defendant.
The Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, injunctive and/or other
equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs arise
under California Business and Professions Code (hereinafter "Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code").
Defendant operates a website which markets unique gift boxes and
related products. Plaintiff purchased a subscription plan from
Defendant in California during the Class Period.
The complaint asserts that Defendant made automatic renewal or
continuous service offers to consumers in California and (a) at the
time of making the automatic renewal or continuous service offers,
failed to present the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous
service offer terms, in a clear and conspicuous manner and in
visual proximity to the request for consent to the offer before the
subscription or purchasing agreement was fulfilled in violation of
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code; (b) charged Plaintiff's and Class Members'
credit or debit cards, or third-party account (hereinafter "Payment
Method") without first obtaining Plaintiff's and Class Members'
affirmative consent to the agreement containing the automatic
renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms in violation
of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code; and (c) failed to provide an
acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal or continuous
service offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding
how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the
consumer in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
FOOD AUTHORITY: House Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HOUSE, on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. FOOD AUTHORITY SOUTH, LLC d/b/a FOOD AUTHORITY,
Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01375-CBD (D. Md., May 9, 2019) brought
is an action to recover damages for Defendant's willful failure to
pay regular and overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"),
and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL").
The Defendant operated a Maryland warehouse where Defendant
employed Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals as
"selectors," or individuals tasked with locating and selecting
specific items within the warehouse to fulfill customer orders. The
Defendant paid selectors a piece rate for their work. Though
selectors worked more than 40 hours a week, Defendant did not pay
them overtime wages. In addition to not paying overtime wages,
Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff House his regular wages for his
final three days of employment, says the complaint.
Plaintiff worked for Defendant from approximately 2013 through
approximately March 26, 2019.
Food Authority South, LLC is a Maryland corporate entity. It does
business as Food Authority.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Zelikovitz, Esq.
DCWAGELAW
519 H Street NW
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 803-6083
Fax: (202) 683-6102
Email: justin@dcwagelaw.com
FREDDIE MAC: Bid to Appeal Class Cert. Ruling Denied
----------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Court of
Appeals has denied plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal the
decision of the district court denying their motion for class
certification in the case, Ohio Public Employees Retirement System
vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, Et Al..
This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from August
1, 2006 through November 20, 2007.
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) later intervened as
Conservator, and the plaintiff amended its complaint on several
occasions. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by making false and
misleading statements concerning the company's business, risk
management, and the procedures the company put into place to
protect the company from problems in the mortgage industry. The
plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and interest, and reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorney and expert fees.
In October 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint.
In October 2014, the District Court granted defendants' motions and
dismissed the case in its entirety against all defendants, with
prejudice. In November 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
On July 20, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed the District
Court's dismissal and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings. On August 14, 2018, the District Court denied
the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
On January 23, 2019, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's
petition for leave to appeal that decision.
At present, it is not possible for us to predict the probable
outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on our business,
financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations. In
addition, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of possible loss in the event of an adverse judgment in the
foregoing matter due to the following factors, among others:
pre-trial litigation is inherently uncertain; while the District
Court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification, this
denial may be appealed upon the entry of final judgment; and the
District Court has not yet ruled upon motions for summary judgment.
In particular, absent a final resolution of whether a class will be
certified, the identification of a class if one is certified, and
the identification of the alleged statement or statements that
survive dispositive motions, we cannot reasonably estimate any
possible loss or range of possible loss.
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation operates in the secondary
mortgage market in the United States. The company purchases
residential mortgage loans originated by lenders, as well as
invests in mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities. It
operates in three segments: Single-family Guarantee, Multifamily,
and Capital Markets. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation was
founded in 1970 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.
FREDDIE MAC: Dismissal in Jacobs and Hindes Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Court of
Appeals has affirmed the dismissal in Jacobs and Hindes vs. Federal
Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and Treasury.
This case was filed on August 17, 2015, as a putative class action
lawsuit purportedly on behalf of a class of holders of preferred
stock or common stock issued by the Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae.
The case was also filed as a shareholder derivative lawsuit,
purportedly on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as "nominal"
defendants.
The complaint alleges, among other items, that the August 2012
amendment to the Purchase Agreement violated applicable state law
and constituted a breach of contract, as well as a breach of
covenants of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs seek equitable
and injunctive relief (including restitution of the monies paid by
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to Treasury under the net worth sweep
dividend), compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses.
On November 27, 2017, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice
after defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On December 21, 2017,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, and on November 14, 2018, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the dismissal.
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation operates in the secondary
mortgage market in the United States. The company purchases
residential mortgage loans originated by lenders, as well as
invests in mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities. It
operates in three segments: Single-family Guarantee, Multifamily,
and Capital Markets. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation was
founded in 1970 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.
FREDDIE MAC: Suit Over Preferred Stock Purchase Deal Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re Fannie
Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class
Action Litigations.
This case is the result of the consolidation of three putative
class action lawsuits:
1. Cacciapelle and Bareiss vs. Federal National Mortgage
Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and FHFA, filed
on July 29, 2013;
2. American European Insurance Company vs. Federal National
Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and
FHFA, filed on July 30, 2013; and
3. Marneu Holdings, Co. vs. FHFA, Treasury, Federal National
Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation,
filed on September 18, 2013. (The Marneu case was also filed as a
shareholder derivative lawsuit.)
A consolidated amended complaint was filed in December 2013. In the
consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs allege, among other
items, that the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement
breached Freddie Mac's and Fannie Mae's respective contracts with
the holders of junior preferred stock and common stock and the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in such contracts.
Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive
relief, and costs and expenses, including attorney and expert
fees.
The Cacciapelle and American European Insurance Company lawsuits
were filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of junior
preferred stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae who held stock
prior to, and as of, August 17, 2012. The Marneu lawsuit was filed
purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of junior preferred
stock and purchasers of common stock issued by Freddie Mac or
Fannie Mae over a not-yet-defined period of time.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation operates in the secondary
mortgage market in the United States. The company purchases
residential mortgage loans originated by lenders, as well as
invests in mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities. It
operates in three segments: Single-family Guarantee, Multifamily,
and Capital Markets. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation was
founded in 1970 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.
GARDA CL SOUTHEAST: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Bailey Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
VIDA BAILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GARDA CL SOUTHEAST, INC.; and VINCENT
MODARELLI, Defendants, Case No. 88008426 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade
Cty., April 15, 2019) is an action against the Defendants' failure
to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiff Bailey was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt,
hourly-paid employee.
Garda Cl Southeast, Inc. was founded in 1990. The company's line of
business includes providing detective, guard, and armored car
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony M. Georges-Pierre,Esq.
Max L. Horowitz, Esq.
REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 416-5000
Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com
mhorowitz@rgpattorneys.com
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Continues to Defend Birnbaum Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend the Birnbaum class action suit.
In February 2019, a putative class action (the Birnbaum case) was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York naming as defendants GE and our current CEO.
It alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged misstatements in connection
with GE's October 2018 announcement that the reporting of its third
quarter financial results would be delayed for five days and seeks
damages on behalf of shareowners who acquired GE stock between
October 12 and October 29, 2018.
General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.
GENERAL MOTORS: Weiss Sues over Defective Chevrolet Drivelines
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against General Motors LLC
(GM) for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The case is
captioned DOUGLAS WEISS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-21552-RNS (S.D. Fla., April 23, 2019). This action
arises from the sale or lease of hundreds of thousands of vehicles
throughout Florida and the United States manufactured by GM that
are equipped with defective drivelines. The defect, often referred
to by consumers as the "Chevy Shake," is that certain GM vehicles
shake violently when they reach interstate cruising speeds. These
defective drivelines were installed in all model year 2015 to
present Cadillac Escalades, 2014 to present Chevrolet Silverados,
2015 to present Chevrolet Suburbans, 2015 to present Chevrolet
Tahoes, 2014 to present GMC Sierras, and 2015 to present GMC
Yukon/Yukon XLs sold or leased to consumers in the United States,
including Plaintiff's vehicle.
GM is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place
of business located at 300 Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan.
GM designs, manufactures and sells automobiles throughout the
United States, including in the State of Florida, under the brand
names Chevrolet, GMC, and Cadillac. GM does business in Florida,
advertising, distributing, and selling its vehicles through its
dealer network and other outlets in the state. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
CORY WATSON, P.C.
2131 Magnolia Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-2200
Facsimile: (205) 324-7896
E-mail: jtapley@corywatson.com
GOOGLE INC: AdTrader Suit in Process of Seeing Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Sterling, writing for Marketing Land, reports that in 2017,
Google agreed to provide refunds to selected advertisers using
DoubleClick Bid Manager (now called Display & Video 360) where ads
were served on sites that had fraudulent or invalid traffic.
Reportedly, hundreds of marketers were eligible, but a class-action
lawsuit by AdTrader asserts that Google improperly withheld those
refund payments, according to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ)
Prior agreement to refund 'platform fee.' When the fraud was
initially discovered, Google said it would repay its "platform
fee," which typically represents between 7% to 10% of the total
value of the ad spend. Some marketers expressed dissatisfaction
with the refund scheme. However, according to the WSJ, "Google said
it wasn't in a position to return money that had already flowed
from its buying tool to third-party online ad marketplaces where
publishers were selling ad space."
AdTrader initiated the class action suit against Google in
California federal court, arguing that Google had "illegally
appropriated" promised advertiser refunds. The lawsuit alleges
that Google never actually issued any refunds, after reclaiming
money from publishers accused of having inflated or fraudulent
traffic.
Alleged failure to pay $75 million. Unsealed court documents
reviewed by the WSJ apparently reflected that Google had not paid
as much as $75 million in potential refunds tied to "ad
marketplaces that Google itself owns and fully controls: AdX and
AdSense."
Various third analyst and monitoring firms have estimated ad fraud
amounts to more than $16 billion globally. Other reports have
different figures. A range of U.S. estimates, including from the
Association of National Advertisers, assert that brands will lose
between $6 and $7 billion this year on fraudulent (non-human)
traffic.
Why you should care. The AdTrader lawsuit is still in process and
seeks class certification for agencies and advertisers that used
DoubleClick Ad Exchange (AdX) and AdSense during the relevant time
frame. It also seeks triple damages and punitive damages as well as
injunctive relief against Google. AdTrader accuses Google of being
a monopolist and positions itself as a champion of advertiser
interests. [GN]
GRUPO TELEVISA: Bid to Dismiss FIFA-Related Suit in NY Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Grupo Televisa, S.A.B. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a New York court has
denied the company's motion to dismiss the purported stockholder
class action suit related to the company's alleged failure to to
disclose alleged involvement in bribery activities relating to
certain executives of Federation Internationale de Football
Association ("FIFA").
On March 5, 2018, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York alleging securities law violations in connection with
allegedly misleading statements and/or omissions in the Company's
public disclosures.
The lawsuit alleges that the Company and two of its executives
failed to disclose alleged involvement in bribery activities
relating to certain executives of Federation Internationale de
Football Association ("FIFA"), and wrongfully failed to disclose
weaknesses in the Company's internal control over its financial
reporting as of December 31, 2016.
On May 17, 2018, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff for the
putative stockholder class. On August 6, 2018, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint. The Company thereupon filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.
On March 25, 2019, the court issued a decision denying the
Company's motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiff's allegations,
if true, were sufficient to support a claim.
The Company believes that the lawsuit, and the material allegations
and claims therein, are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend against the lawsuit.
Grupo Televisa, S.A.B. operates as a media company in the
Spanish-speaking world. The company operates through four segments:
Content, Sky, Cable, and Other Businesses. Grupo Televisa, S.A.B.
was founded in 1990 and is based in Mexico City, Mexico.
HUMANA INSURANCE: Day Sues Under ERISA Over Denied Reimbursement
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY DAY, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HUMANA INSURANCE COMPANY, and OSF
HEALTHCARE SYSTEM GROUP MEDICAL AND DENTAL PLAN, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-03141 (N.D. Ill., May 9, 2019) is brought for breach of
fiduciary duty in relation to employee welfare benefit plans
pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") which, in this case, involves group healthcare plans
administered by and/or insured by Humana.
Plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated to challenge Humana's deceptive and
fraudulent misrepresentations to its insured members that it
provides access and coverage for medically necessary cancer
treatment, yet despite proven efficacy of proton beam radiation
therapy ("PBRT") for treatment of a variety of cancers, including
the type of cancer that afflicted the Plaintiff and other class
members, denies reimbursement for such treatment for most types of
cancer based on internal guidelines that are outdated and
inconsistent with generally accepted standards of medical care.
Plaintiff specifically seeks reimbursement for the out-of-pocket
expenses she incurred when she was wrongfully denied coverage for
her medically necessary PBRT treatment and also seeks reimbursement
of out-of-pocket expenses incurred by other class members for PBRT
treatment, says the complaint.
Plaintiff was a resident of Toulon, Illinois, located in Stark
County, Illinois in the Peoria metropolitan area.
OSF HealthCare ("OSF"), which is engaged in the business of health
care in the Central and Northern Districts of Illinois, sponsored
the Plan, and Plaintiff received coverage under the Plan as a
"participant".[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark D. DeBofsky, Esq.
Marie E. Casciari, Esq.
William T. Reynolds, Esq.
DeBofsky, Sherman & Casciari, P.C.
150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1925
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 561-4040
Fax: (312) 929-0309
Email: mcasciari@debofsky.com
wreynolds@debofsky.com
mdebofsky@debofsky.com
INDIVIOR PLC: Van Dorp Sues over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Indivior PLC and
its executives for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The case is captioned MICHAEL VAN DORP, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. INDIVIOR
PLC, SHAUN THAXTER, MARK CROSSLEY, and CARY J. CLAIBORNE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10792 (D.N.J., April 23, 2019).
Plaintiff Michael Van Dorp brings class action on behalf of persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
Indivior securities between March 10, 2015 and April 9, 2019. On
March 10, 2015, the Indivior PLC \=issued a press release
containing a web link to its financial results for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2014. The 2014 Annual Report contained a
confirmation by the Board, which included Defendants Shaun Thaxter
and Mark Crossley, attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting
and a fair review of the development and performance of the
business, as well as the attendant opportunities and risks.
Plaintiff Van Dorp accuses Indivior of releasing materially false
or misleading statements. He alleges that the company and its
executives misrepresented and failed to disclose the following
adverse facts pertaining to the company's business, operations and
prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Indivior and its
executives engaged in an illicit nationwide scheme to increase
prescriptions of Suboxone Film; (2) Indivior illegally obtained
billions of dollars in revenue from Suboxone Film prescriptions by
deceiving health care providers and health care benefit programs;
(3) as a result of the aforementioned misconduct, Indivior would
face felony charges; and (4) due to the foregoing, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.
Defendant Indivior together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, and sells buprenorphine-based prescription drugs for
the treatment of opioid dependence. The Company's product pipeline
focuses on treating opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder,
opiate overdose, and schizophrenia. Indivior is incorporated in and
has its principal executive offices in the United Kingdom.
Indivior's sponsored ADRs trade on the OTC under the ticker symbol
"INVVY". [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
South Orange, NJ 07079
Telephone: (973) 313-1887
Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
JACOB TRANSPORTATION: Appeals Ruling in Greene Suit to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Jacob Transportation Services, LLC, Carol Jimmerson and
James Jimmerson filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit
titled Robert Greene, et al. v. Jacob Transportation Services LLC,
et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-00355-GMN-CWH, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada, Las Vegas.
The lawsuit is brought for claims under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Gloria
M. Navarro granted the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement in the case. The settlement class is defined as all
Limousine Driver employees, who worked for Jacob Transportation
Services, LLC, doing business as Executive Las Vegas, at any time
from March 10, 2006, through May 31, 2018.
The appellate case is captioned as Robert Greene, et al. v. Jacob
Transportation Services LLC, et al., Case No. 19-15875, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript must be ordered by May 28, 2019;
-- Transcript is due on June 24, 2019;
-- Appellants Jacob Transportation Services, LLC, Carol
Jimmerson and James Jimmerson's opening brief is due on
August 5, 2019;
-- Appellees Gregory Green, Robert Greene and Thomas Thatcher
Schemkes' answering brief is due on September 3, 2019; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees ROBERT GREENE, GREGORY GREEN and THOMAS
THATCHER SCHEMKES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
Mark Russell Thierman, Esq.
Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
Leah Lin Jones, Esq.
THIERMAN BUCK, LLP
7287 Lakeside Drive
Reno, NV 89511
Telephone: (775) 284-1500
E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
josh@thiermanbuck.com
leah@thiermanbuck.com
- and -
Jason Kuller, Esq.
KULLER LAW PC
10775 Double R Blvd.
Reno, NV 89521
Telephone: (855) 810-8103
E-mail: jason@kullerlaw.com
Defendants-Appellants JACOB TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC, a Nevada
corporation, DBA Executive Las Vegas; JAMES JIMMERSON, an
individual; and CAROL JIMMERSON, an individual, are represented
by:
James Jimmerson, Esq.
JIMMERSON HANSEN, P.C.
415 S. Sixth St.
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: (702) 388-7171
E-mail: jmj@jimmersonhansen.com
- and -
James Joseph Jimmerson, Esq.
THE JIMMERSON LAW FIRM, PC
415 S. Sixth Street, Suite 100
Las Vegas, NV 89121
Telephone: (702) 388-7171
E-mail: jjj@jimmersonlawfirm.com
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Landrum Labor Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DUSTY LANDRUM, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs.
JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19-CIV-01735 (Filed on
March 26, 2019, was transferred from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Mateo to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
April 26, 2019. The federal court has original subject matter
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 because
minimum diversity exists and the amount in controversy exceeds
$5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs. United States District
Court Northern District of California assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02289 to the proceeding.
In this complaint, Plaintiff Dusty Landrum alleges eight causes of
action on behalf of Plaintiff and a putative class under California
law: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to pay minimum
wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide
rest periods; (5) failure to timely pay all final wages; (6)
failure to indemnify for business expenses; (7) unlawful business
practices; and (8) unfair business practices.
JetBlue Airways is an American low-cost airline headquartered in
New York City. The airline offers flights to more than 90
destinations. [BN]
Attorneys for Defendant:
Brendan T. Killeen, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178-0060
Telephone: (212) 309-6000
Facsimile: (212) 309-6001
E-mail: Brendan.killeen@morganlewis.com
- and -
Andrew P. Frederick, Esq.
Maureen N. Beckley, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: (650) 843-4000
Facsimile: (650) 843-4001
E-mail: afrederick@morganlewis.com
maureen.beckley@morganlewis.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dahl Suit Remanded to California Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA DAHL, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-03522, was remanded
from the United States District Court California Central District
Court to Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Santa Clara on April 29, 2019. The case was originally filed in
the California Superior Court on May 2, 2018 with Case No.
18CV327541.
The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.
Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.
Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Lee Cirsch, Esq.
Michael Akselrud, Esq.
THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (310) 277 5100
Facsimile: (310) 277 5103
E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com
michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Daigle Suit Remanded to California Superior Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN DAIGLE, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-03523, was remanded
from the California Central District Court to Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles on April 29,
2019. The case was originally filed in the California Superior
Court on March 14, 2018 with Case No. BC698281.
The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.
Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.
Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Robert A. Mosier, Esq.
Timothy M. Clark, Esq.
Lauren A. Welling, Esq.
SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
2860 Michelle Drive Suite 220
Irvine, CA 92606
Telephone: (877) 480-9142
Facsimile: (213) 330-0346
E-mail: lwelling@thesandersfirm.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Damheiser Suit Moved to Calif. Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL DAMHEISER, individually and as Successor-in-interest of
SILVIA PENA, deceased MARY ANN DAKE, the Plaintiffs, vs. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business
in the State of California, and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-03525, was remanded from the Northern District of
California to the Superior Court of California, Plumas County on
April 29, 2019. The case was filed at the Superior Court of
California on May 17, 2018 with Case No. CIV-18-00099.
The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligence, negligent failure to warn strict liability failure to
warn, and design defect of their talcum-based products.
Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.
Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff:
Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq.
Bradley K. King, esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
10728 Lindbrook Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: 310 474 9111
E-mail: randoot@andootwolfson.com
bking@andootwolfson.com
- and -
Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
Amanda K. Klevorn, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: 504 799 2845
E-mail: knelson@burnscharest.com
aklevorn@burnscharest. corn
- and -
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
Daniel H. Charest, Esq.
Spencer M. Cox, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: 469 904 4550
E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
dcharest@burnscharest.com
scox@burnscharest.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Daniels Suit Remanded to Calif. Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA DANIELS a/k/a TERESA JENDRZEWSKI, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON
& JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A
LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-03531, was
remanded from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California to the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara on April 29, 2019. The case was filed at the Superior Court
of California on July 10, 2018 with Case No. 18CV330512.
The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligence, negligent failure to warn strict liability failure to
warn, and design defect of their talcum-based products.
Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.
Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems, "and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff:
Curtis G. Hoke, Esq.
THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
108 Railroad Ave.
Orange, VA 22960
Telephone: (540) 672-4224
Facsimile: (540) 672-3055
E-mail: choke@millerfirmllc.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Darian Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
NAHID DARIAN, an individual; PAUL BARTON, as surviving statutory
beneficiary for the wrongful death of ELIZABETH BENCH BARTON,
deceased, individually, and on behalf of all other heirs of
decedent, the Plaintiffs, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER, INC. F/N/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.;
IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC. and DOES 1 -
50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC-47812, was removed from
the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on April 29,
2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No.: 2:19-cv-03530 to the proceeding.
The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligence, negligent failure to warn strict liability failure to
warn, and design defect of their talcum-based products.
Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.
Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:
Robert A. Mosier, Esq.
Timothy M. Clark, Esq.
Lauren A. Welling, Esq.
Rachel N. Van, Esq.
SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
2860 Michelle Drive Suite 220
Irvine, CA 92606
Telephone: (877) 480-9142
Facsimile: (213) 330-0346
E-mail: rmosier@thesandersfirm.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Davenport Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
KELLY DAVENPORT, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in
California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with
its principal place of business in the State of California; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
CIVDS1725511, was removed from the Superior Court of California,
San Bernardino County, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on April 29, 2019. The Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No.: 2:19-cv-03536 to the
proceeding.
The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.
Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.
Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:
Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
19 Corporate Plaza Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: 949 720 4288
Facsimile: 949 720 4292
E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirnicom
- and -
Michelle Parfitt, Esq.
Patrick Lyons, Esq.
ASIECRAFT & GEREL, LLP
4900 Seminary Road, Suite 650
Alexandria, VA 22311
Telephone: (703) 931-5500
Facsimile: (703) 820-1656
E-mail: mparfitt@ashcraftlaw.com
plyons@ashcraftlaw.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Day Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
MELISSA DAY, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA,
INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV323999, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Santa Clara to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 29, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03529 to the proceeding.
The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.
Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.
Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff:
Hellen Zukin, Esq.
Melanie Meneses Palmer, Esq.
Cherisse H. Cleofe, Esq.
KIESEL LAW LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
Telephone: 310 854-4444
Facsimile: 310 854-0812
E-mail: zukin@kiesellaw
palrner@kiesellaw
cleofe@lciesellaw
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Doss et al. Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
VICKEY DOSS, an individual; and MICHELE M. SMITH, an individual,
the Plaintiffs, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation
doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business
in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. SCV0038336 (Sept. 1, 2016), was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of Placer, to U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on May 1,
2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:19-cv-03735 to the proceeding.
The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.
Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.
Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:
Mark. P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
Karen L. Karavatos, Esq.
Cynthia L Garber, Esq.
ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
19 Corporate Plaza Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 720-1288
Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Doyle et al Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
Doyle et al, the Plaintiffs, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. JCCP 4872 (Jan. 15, 2019), was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of California Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03708 the proceeding.
The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.
Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.
Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:
Mark. P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
19 Corporate Plaza Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 720-1288
Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Duggan Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Duggan, an Individual, and as Successor in Interest for
Stefani Schatz, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG18900031 (April 9, 2018), was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda,
to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
May 1, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03729 the proceeding.
The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.
Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.
Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff:
Mark. P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
19 Corporate Plaza Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 720-1288
Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dykes Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
DAVID DYKES, Individually and as Successor-In-Interest for
DELLAJEAN COMBS, the Plaintiffs, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New
Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 17CV318645 (Nov. 6, 2017), was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of California Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03769 the proceeding.
The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligence, negligent failure to warn strict liability failure to
warn, and design defect of their talcum-based products.
Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.
Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff:
Mark. P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
Karen L. Karavatos, Esq.
Cynthia L Garber, Esq.
ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
19 Corporate Plaza Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 720-1288
Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fearon Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN FEARON, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS
TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place
of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 56-2018-00519620-CU-PL-VTA
(Nov. 5, 2018), was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Ventura, to U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03732 the proceeding.
The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligence, negligent failure to warn strict liability failure to
warn, and design defect of their talcum-based products.
Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.
Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff:
Mark. P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
19 Corporate Plaza Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 720-1288
Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com
- and -
Ted G. Meadows, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
PORTIS & MILES, PC
218 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (800) 898 2034
- and -
R. Allen Smith, Jr., Esq.
THE SMITH LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
681 Towne Center Boulevard, Suite B
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Telephone: (601) 952-1422
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Finch Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
TRACI FINCH, Individually and as Special Administrator for the
Estate of MARY PARRISH, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New
Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CECG03022 (Aug. 13, 2018),
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
Fresno, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of California Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03762 the proceeding.
The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligence, negligent failure to warn strict liability failure to
warn, and design defect of their talcum-based products.
Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.
Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff:
Mark. P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
19 Corporate Plaza Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 720-1288
Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com
- and -
Ted G. Meadows, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
PORTIS & MILES, PC
218 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (800) 898 2034
- and -
R. Allen Smith, Jr., Esq.
THE SMITH LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
681 Towne Center Boulevard, Suite B
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Telephone: (601) 952-1422
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Heinisch Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
SHIRLEY HEINISCH, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in
California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with
its principal place of business in the State of California; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CIV04501
(Aug. 28, 2018), was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of San Mateo, to U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03776 the
proceeding.
The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligence, negligent failure to warn strict liability failure to
warn, and design defect of their talcum-based products.
Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.
Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users or similarly situated individuals that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff:
Mark. P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
19 Corporate Plaza Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 720-1288
Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com
- and -
Ted G. Meadows, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
PORTIS & MILES, PC
218 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (800) 898 2034
- and -
R. Allen Smith, Jr., Esq.
THE SMITH LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
681 Towne Center Boulevard, Suite B
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Telephone: (601) 952-1422
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hollis Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
LINDA J. HOLLIS, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in
California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with
its principal place of business in the State of California; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV324329
(March 6, 2018), was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Santa Clara, to U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03781 the
proceeding.
The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.
Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.
Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff:
Helen Zukin, Esq.
Melanie Meneses Palmer, Esq.
Cherisse H. Cleofe, Esq
KIESEL LAW LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
Telephone: 310-854-4444
Facsimile: 310-854-0812
E-mail: zukin@kiesel.law
pahner@kiesel.law
eleofe@kieset law
- and -
Ted G. Meadows, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
PORTIS & MILES, PC
218 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (800) 898 2034
- and -
R. Allen Smith, Jr., Esq.
THE SMITH LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
681 Towne Center Boulevard, Suite B
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Telephone: (601) 952-1422
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jacquez Sues over Baby Powder Products
---------------------------------------------------------
A product liability-related class action complaint has been filed
against Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies,
Inc. and Imerys Talc America. The case is captioned NANCY JACQUEZ,
Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.,
a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the state of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-03369 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 25, 2019). Plaintiff Nancy Jacquez seeks recovery for damages
as a result of developing ovarian cancer, which was directly and
proximately caused by such wrongful conduct by Defendants, the
unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of the talcum powder,
the main ingredient of the Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and/or
Shower to Shower body powder, and the attendant effects of
developing and suffering from ovarian cancer.
Johnson & Johnson was and is a corporation authorized to do
business in and was and is doing business in the state of
California. Incorporated in New Jersey in 1887, Johnson & Johnson
maintains an office located at One Johnson & Johnson Plaza, New
Brunswick, New Jersey, as well as several locations within the
state of California, and has approximately 127,100 employees
worldwide. The company's primary focus is on products related to
human health and well-being.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., was a New Jersey
Corporation doing business in the state of California, was a wholly
owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, and engaged in substantial,
continuous economic activity in California, including marketing,
distribution, and sale of billions of dollars in products to
Californians including, but not limited to, Shower to Shower body
powder and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder.
Imerys Talc America, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its
principal place of business in the state of California. The company
has been in the business of mining and distributing talcum powder
for use in talcum powder based products, including Shower to Shower
body powder and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Salkow, Esq.
SALICOW LAW, APC
1540 7th Street, Ste. 206
Santa Monica, CA 90401-3432
Telephone: (310) 451-8484;
Facsimile: (310) 451-8486
E-mail: rsalkow@salkowlaw.com
- and -
James G. Onder, Esq.
THE ONDER LAW FIRM
110 East Lockwood
St. Louis, MO 63119
Telephone: (314) 963-9000
Facsimile: (314) 963-1700
E-mail: onder@onderlaw.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jones Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
KATHRYN JONES, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS
TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place
of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 17CV318668 (Nov. 6, 2017), was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of California Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03744 the proceeding.
The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.
Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.
Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff:
Helen Zukin, Esq.
Melanie Meneses Palmer, Esq.
Cherisse H. Cleofe, Esq
KIESEL LAW LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
Telephone: 310-854-4444
Facsimile: 310-854-0812
E-mail: zukin@kiesel.law
pahner@kiesel.law
eleofe@kieset law
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Bozicevic Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the matter entitled IRENE BOZICEVIC v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.
F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03265 to the
proceeding.
The action was initiated on July 25, 2018, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Santa Clara and was
assigned Case No. 18CV331853.
The lawsuit is a products liability action against the Defendants
because the Plaintiff has suffered from the severe effects of
Ovarian Cancer caused by Johnson & Johnson's baby powder and
Shower-to-Shower consumer products, which were manufactured, mined,
and/or marketed by the Defendants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Curtis G. Hoke, Esq.
THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
108 Railroad Ave.
Orange, VA 22960
Telephone: (540) 672-4224
Facsimile: (540) 672-3055
E-mail: choke@millerfirmllc.com
Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
are represented by:
Nicholas Vaughan Janizeh, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 430-3400
Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
E-mail: nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Brookins Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the matter styled GWEN BROOKINS, an
individual, and BROOK BROOKINS, an individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS
TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place
of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03281 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit was commenced on March 1, 2018, in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was
assigned Case No. 18CV323985.
The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff's Spouse
or the Plaintiff's Decedent developed ovarian cancer, and suffered
effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate result of
the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder,
the main ingredient of the Defendants' products, which include
Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder.
The complaint accuses the Defendants of wrongful and negligent
conduct in the research, development, testing, manufacture,
production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of the
products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lee Cirsch, Esq.
Michael Akselrud, Esq.
THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (310) 277-5100
Facsimile: (310) 277-5103
E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com
michael.alcselrud@lanierlawfirm.com
Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
are represented by:
Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223
Telephone: (213) 430-3400
Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
E-mail: amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Calderon Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the matter titled YVETTE MARIE CALDERON,
individually and as personal representative of the ESTATE OF
ELEANOR CALDERON v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation
doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS
TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place
of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03307 to the
proceeding.
The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries,
specifically, ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer. J&J disputes
these allegations.
On May 1, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior
Court of Santa Clara County, which generally alleges that the
Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum
powder products, caused the Decedent's personal injury and/or
wrongful death.
The case was coordinated into the coordinated proceeding pending in
Los Angeles County Superior Court before Judge Maren Nelson: In re
Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases (JCCP No. 4872). On February
20, 2019, leadership for all plaintiffs in the coordinated
proceeding filed a Second Amended Master Complaint ("Master
Complaint").
On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").
Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.[BN]
Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
are represented by:
Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
Nicholas Janizeh, Esq.
Caroline Toole, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 430-3400
Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com
caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com
- and -
Michael F. Healy, Esq.
Emily Weissenberger, Esq.
Alexander Guney, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
One Montgomery Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 544-1900
Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
eweissenberger@shb.com
aguney@shb.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removed Davis Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson removed case, BERT E. DAVIS, individually and as
successor-in-interest to CAROL ANN DAVIS, deceased, ELAINA BRANT
and GREGORY DAVIS, the Plaintiffs, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New
Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business
in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation
with its principal place of business in the State of California;
and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on April 29,
2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No.: 2:19-cv-03527 to the proceeding.
On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada,
Inc., filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a
reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et
al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware. Since the Chapter 11 Case was
commenced, the Debtors have remained as debtors in possession under
11 U.S.C. section 1101 and have the rights, powers, and duties set
out in U.S.C. sections 1107 and 1108.
The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.
Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.
Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for the Defendants:
Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
Nicholas Janizeh, Esq.
Caroline Toole, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
515 South Flower Street
Forty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213 430 3400
Facsimile: 213 430 3409
E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com
caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com
- and -
Michael F. Healy, Esq.
Emily Weissenberger, Esq.
Alexander Guney, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
One Montgomery, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: 415 544 1900
Facsimile: 415 391 0281
E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
eweissenberger@shb.com
aguney@shb.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Bowman Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the lawsuit titled JANET BOWMAN, an
individual, et al. v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER, INC. F/N/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.;
IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC. and DOES 1—
50, inclusive, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03259 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit was filed on November 23, 2016, in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Sonoma and was
assigned Case No. SCV 259795.
The lawsuit is an action for damages relating to the Defendants'
design, manufacture, sale, marketing, advertising, promotion, and
distribution of Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower.
The Plaintiffs allege that the use of the products can cause
ovarian cancer and other serious health conditions. The Plaintiffs
assert that they used the products and as a result of their use of
the products, they suffered injuries.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert A. Mosier, Esq.
Timothy M. Clark, Esq.
Lauren A. Welling, Esq.
Rachel N. Van, Esq.
SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
2860 Michelle Drive, Suite 220
Irvine, CA 92606
Telephone: (877) 480-9142
Facsimile: (213) 330-0346
E-mail: rmosier@thesandersfirm.com
tclark@thesandersfirm.com
lwelling@thesandersfirm.com
Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
are represented by:
Nicholas Vaughan Janizeh, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 430-3400
Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
E-mail: nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Brock Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the lawsuit styled DARLENE A. BROCK, an
individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.,
a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03291 to the
proceeding.
The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries,
specifically, ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer. J&J disputes
these allegations.
On November 6 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior
Court of Santa Clara County, which generally alleges that the
Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum
powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or
wrongful death.
The case was coordinated into the coordinated proceeding pending in
Los Angeles County Superior Court before Judge Maren Nelson: In re
Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases (JCCP No. 4872). On February
20, 2019, leadership for all plaintiffs in the coordinated
proceeding filed a Second Amended Master Complaint ("Master
Complaint").
On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").
Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.[BN]
Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
are represented by:
Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
Nicholas Janizeh, Esq.
Caroline Toole, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 430-3400
Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com
caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com
- and -
Michael F. Healy, Esq.
Emily Weissenberger, Esq.
Alexander Guney, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
One Montgomery Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 544-1900
Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
eweissenberger@shb.com
aguney@shb.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Brown Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the matter titled ANTHONY BROWN SR., an
individual and as Successor in Interest for MARGARET BROWN, et al.
v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in
California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New
Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03286 to the
proceeding.
The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries,
specifically, ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer. J&J disputes
these allegations.
On August 3, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior
Court of San Bernardino County, which generally alleges that the
Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum
powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or
wrongful death.
The case was coordinated into the coordinated proceeding pending in
Los Angeles County Superior Court before Judge Maren Nelson: In re
Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases (JCCP No. 4872). On February
20, 2019, leadership for all plaintiffs in the coordinated
proceeding filed a Second Amended Master Complaint ("Master
Complaint").
On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").
Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.[BN]
Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
are represented by:
Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
Nicholas Janizeh, Esq.
Caroline Toole, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 430-3400
Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com
caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com
- and -
Michael F. Healy, Esq.
Emily Weissenberger, Esq.
Alexander Guney, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
One Montgomery Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 544-1900
Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
eweissenberger@shb.com
aguney@shb.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Brunton Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the lawsuit captioned CHRISTINE L.
BRUNTON, as surviving statutory beneficiary for the wrongful death
of SHERRY ZIMBARDI, deceased, individually, and on behalf of all
other heirs of decedent v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. f/k/a JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.;
IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03297 to the
proceeding.
The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries,
specifically, ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer. J&J disputes
these allegations.
On March 9, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior
Court of Los Angeles County, which generally alleges that the
Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum
powder products, caused the Decedent's personal injury and/or
wrongful death.
The case was coordinated into the coordinated proceeding pending in
Los Angeles County Superior Court before Judge Maren Nelson: In re
Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases (JCCP No. 4872). On February
20, 2019, leadership for all plaintiffs in the coordinated
proceeding filed a Second Amended Master Complaint ("Master
Complaint").
On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").
Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.[BN]
Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
are represented by:
Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
Nicholas Janizeh, Esq.
Caroline Toole, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 430-3400
Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com
caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com
- and -
Michael F. Healy, Esq.
Emily Weissenberger, Esq.
Alexander Guney, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
One Montgomery Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 544-1900
Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
eweissenberger@shb.com
aguney@shb.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Burke Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the matter entitled BIBI BURKE, an
individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business
in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03303 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit was initiated on April 9, 2018, in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara and was
assigned Case No. 18CV326304.
The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff's Spouse or
the Plaintiff's Decedent developed ovarian cancer, and suffered
effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate result of
the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder,
the main ingredient of the Defendants' products, which include
Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder.
The complaint accuses the Defendants of wrongful and negligent
conduct in the research, development, testing, manufacture,
production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of the
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee Cirsch, Esq.
Michael Akselrud, Esq.
THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (310) 277-5100
Facsimile: (310) 277-5103
E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com
michael.alcselrud@lanierlawfirm.com
Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
are represented by:
Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 430-3400
Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
E-mail: amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Burroughs Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the lawsuit styled STEVEN BURROUGHS, as
surviving spouse and AMANDA PAULINO, as surviving daughter and
statutory beneficiaries for the wrongful death of MARY BURROUGHS,
deceased, individually and on behalf of all other heirs of decedent
v. IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its
principal place of business in the State of California; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03308 to the
proceeding.
The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries,
specifically, ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer. J&J disputes
these allegations.
On December 14, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the
Superior Court of Ventura County, which generally alleges that the
Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum
powder products, caused the Decedent's personal injury and/or
wrongful death.
The case was coordinated into the coordinated proceeding pending in
Los Angeles County Superior Court before Judge Maren Nelson: In re
Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases (JCCP No. 4872). On February
20, 2019, leadership for all plaintiffs in the coordinated
proceeding filed a Second Amended Master Complaint ("Master
Complaint").
On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").
Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.[BN]
Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
are represented by:
Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
Nicholas Janizeh, Esq.
Caroline Toole, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 430-3400
Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com
caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com
- and -
Michael F. Healy, Esq.
Emily Weissenberger, Esq.
Alexander Guney, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
One Montgomery Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 544-1900
Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
eweissenberger@shb.com
aguney@shb.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Call Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the matter entitled STEPHANIE CALL v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. f/k/a JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a
LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03295 to the
proceeding.
The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries,
specifically, ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer. J&J disputes
these allegations.
On November 14, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, which generally alleges that
the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum
powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or
wrongful death.
The case was coordinated into the coordinated proceeding pending in
Los Angeles County Superior Court before Judge Maren Nelson: In re
Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases (JCCP No. 4872). On February
20, 2019, leadership for all plaintiffs in the coordinated
proceeding filed a Second Amended Master Complaint ("Master
Complaint").
On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").
Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.[BN]
Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
are represented by:
Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
Nicholas Janizeh, Esq.
Caroline Toole, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 430-3400
Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com
caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com
- and -
Michael F. Healy, Esq.
Emily Weissenberger, Esq.
Alexander Guney, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
One Montgomery Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 544-1900
Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
eweissenberger@shb.com
aguney@shb.com
JONES FINANCIAL: Faces Watson et al. Labor Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
The Jones Financial Companies LLLP and Edward D Jones & Co LP. The
case is captioned Dallas Watson vs. The Jones Financial Companies
LLLP, Case No. 34-2019-00255234-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento
Cty., April 30, 2019).
The Jones Financial Companies LLLP, through its subsidiary, Edward
D. Jones & Co., LP, operates as a registered broker-dealer and
provides investment advisory services; shareholder accounting
services, including maintaining client account information and
other administrative services for the mutual funds; insurance
contract services to insurance companies; and custodial and other
account services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jennifer Lin Liu, Esq.
THE LIU LAW FIRM, P.C.
800 Menlo Avenue, Suite 102
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: (650) 461-9000
Facsimile: (650) 460-6967
Email: jliu@liulawpc.com
- and –
Rachel Bien, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
One California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 638-8800
Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
E-mail: rmb@outtengolden.com
L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Merger Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
L3 Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that litigation over a
merger transaction has been voluntarily dismissed.
The company, Harris Corporation ("Harris") and Leopard Merger Sub
Inc. ("Merger Sub"), with the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated
as of October 12, 2018 (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which
L3 and Harris have agreed, upon the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, to effect an
all-stock, merger of equals combination of their respective
businesses (the "Merger").
As previously disclosed, the four lawsuits challenging the merger
of the Company and Harris were filed by purported L3 shareholders.
These lawsuits have been dismissed by the plaintiffs. They were:
(1) an individual action captioned Stein v. L3 Technologies,
Inc., et al., in the Southern District of New York, naming L3 and
the members of L3's board of directors -- Plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed this matter with prejudice on March 18, 2019;
(2) a putative class action captioned Raul v. L3 Technologies,
Inc., et al., in the Southern District of New York, naming L3 and
the members of L3's board of directors -- Plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed this matter with prejudice on March 12, 2019;
(3) a putative class action captioned Gross v. L3 Technologies,
Inc., et al., in the Southern District of New York, naming L3 and
the members of L3's board of directors -- Plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed this matter with prejudice on March 18, 2019; and
(4) a putative class action captioned Kent v. L3 Technologies,
Inc., et al., in the District of Delaware, naming L3, the members
of L3's board of directors, Harris and Merger Sub -- Plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed this matter with prejudice on March 18,
2019.
L3 Technologies, Inc. provides aircraft sustainment, simulation and
training, night vision and image intensification equipment, and
security and detection systems used on military, homeland security,
and commercial platforms in the United States and internationally.
It operates in three segments: Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance (ISR) Systems; Communications and Networked Systems
(C&NS); and Electronic Systems. The company was formerly known as
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to L3
Technologies, Inc. in December 2016. L3 Technologies, Inc. was
founded in 1997 and is headquartered in New York, New York.
LCF INC: Honeycutt Seeks Damages, Back Pay for Club Dancers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Honeycutt on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. LCF, Inc. d/b/a Brandy's
Gentlemen's Club, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00206 (N.D. Ind., May
9, 2019) is a class and collective action against Defendant seeking
damages, back pay, restitution, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and all other
relief that the Court deems just, reasonable and equitable in the
circumstances.
The Plaintiff complains that Defendant misclassified her and all
other members of the class and collective as "independent
contractors." As a result, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and
all other members of the class and collective minimum wage
compensation they were entitled to under the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act, ("FLSA") and the Indiana Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"),
says the complaint.
Plaintiff was employed as an exotic dancer by Brandy's Club at its
Fort Wayne, Indiana gentlemen's club for the period of about
February 2016 through about March 2018.
Brandy's Club is a corporation formed in the State of Indiana that
operates as a gentlemen's club featuring female exotic
dancers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel K. Stein, Esq.
Lynn and Stein, P.C.
102 South Wabash Street
Wabash, IN 46992
Phone: (260) 563-8020
Email: jstein@lynnandstein.com
- and -
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
Zipin, Amster & Greenberg, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: (301) 587-9373
Email: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com
LEPRINO FOODS: Bowles Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned STEVEN D. BOWLES on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a
Colorado corporation, LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, a
Colorado corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 19C-0083 was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Kings to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California on May 9, 2019, and
assigned Case No. 1:19-at-00346.
Plaintiff Complaint asserts four causes of action: (1) Failure to
Pay Lawful Wages; (2) Failure to Provide Lawful Meal Periods or
Compensation in Lieu Thereof; (3) Failure to Timely Pay Wages; and
(4) Violation of the Unfair Competition Law.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
SANDRA L. RAPPAPORT, ESQ.
LISA M. POOLEY, ESQ.
MOLLY L. KABAN, ESQ.
HANSON BRIDGET LLP
425 Market Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 777-3200
Facsimile: (415) 541-9366
LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Manopla Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a class action suit entitled, Daniel
Manopla v. Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lonnel Coats and Jeffrey
L. Wade.
On January 28, 2019, a purported securities class action complaint
captioned Daniel Manopla v. Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lonnel
Coats and Jeffrey L. Wade was filed against the Company, and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division.
The lawsuit purports to be a class action brought on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from March
11, 2016 through January 17, 2019.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements and/or omissions concerning data from its Phase 3
clinical trials of sotagliflozin in type 1 diabetes patients and
the prospects of FDA approval of sotagliflozin for the treatment of
type 1 diabetes.
The complaint purports to assert claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The compliant seeks, on behalf of the purported class, an
unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses
of attorneys and experts, and other relief.
Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on the development and commercialization of pharmaceutical
products. Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas.
LIVEFREE EMERGENCY: Boehm Sues Over Unauthorized Calls Under TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW BOEHM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. LIVEFREE EMERGENCY RESPONSE, INC., a
Delaware corporation, INTERNET LISTING SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company, T WILSON INVESTMENTS LLC, a Florida
limited liability company, TIMOTHY WILSON, an individual
Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00208 (D. Neb., May 9, 2019) seeks to
stop Defendants' illegal practice of making unauthorized calls that
play prerecorded voice messages to the cellular telephones of
consumers nationwide, and to obtain redress for all persons injured
by their conduct.
The Defendants are various service businesses. As a primary part of
their marketing efforts, Defendants and their agents place
thousands of automated calls employing a prerecorded voice message
to consumers' cell phones nationwide. Unfortunately, Defendants do
not obtain consent prior to placing these calls and, therefore, are
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").
The TCPA targets unauthorized calls exactly like the ones alleged
in this case, based on Defendants' use of technological equipment
to spam consumers with its advertising on a grand scale. By placing
the calls at issue, Defendants have violated the privacy and
statutory rights of Plaintiff and the Class, says the complaint.
Plaintiff ANDREW BOEHM is a natural person and is a citizen of the
District of Nebraska.
Defendant ILS, Defendant TWI, and Defendant Wilson sell internet
business listings. Defendant LER sells medical alert equipment,
including the "Guardian Lifewatch".[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
210 S Ellsworth Ave #486
San Mateo, CA 94401
Phone: 650-781-8000
Facsimile: 650-648-0705
Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com
LYFT INC: Clapper Sues over Misrepresentation in IPO Documents
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Lyft, Inc. et al.
for violations of the federal securities laws. The case is
captioned WESLEY CLAPPER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. LYFT, INC., LOGAN GREEN, JOHN
ZIMMER, BRIAN ROBERTS, PRASHANT AGGARWAL, BEN HOROWITS, VALERIE
JARRETT, DAVID LAWEE, HIROSHI MIKITANI, ANN MIURA-KO, MARY AGNES
WILDEROTTER, RAKUTEN, INC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES (USA) LLC,
JEFFERIES LLC, UBS SECURITIES LLC, STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY
INCORPORATED, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS
INC., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
CANACCORD GENUITY LLC., Case No. CGC-19-575453 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco Cty., April 23, 2019).
Plaintiff Wesley Clapper brings this action on behalf of Lyft
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with Lyft's March 29,
2019 initial public stock offering (IPO). The company's
Registration Statement describes how its rideshare business
operated, and how its drivers were treated fairly and benefited by
using the app. However, it failed to disclose and misrepresented
adverse facts that existed at the time of the IPO. For months prior
to the IPO, Lyft had been receiving reports of injuries to people
using the electric-assist bikes due to the front brakes clamping
down too sharply, including injuries caused by riders flying over
the handlebars when the front wheel locked up and as a result, Lyft
could not safely operate and would be forced to, at least
temporarily, pull all 3,000 of the electric-assist bikes it had
launched in New York City, San Francisco and Washington D.C. off
the streets. Lyft would not have 4,000 electric-assist bikes on the
streets by June 2019, as it had emphasized during its IPO road show
presentation.
Lyft, Inc. is a San Francisco, California-based company that
provides a peer-to-peer marketplace for on-demand ridesharing in
the United States and Canada and other related transportation
services; including a network of shared bikes and scooters in
various cities. To facilitate its use, Lyft integrates third-party
public transit data into the Lyft app to offer various enterprise
programs, including monthly ride credits for daily commutes,
supplementing public transit by providing rides for the first and
last leg of commuter trips, late-night rides home, and shuttle
replacement rides. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James I. Jaconnette, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: jamesj@rgrdlaw.com
LYFT INC: Faces Lande Suit over Drop in Share Prices
----------------------------------------------------
FREDERIC LANDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LYFT INC.; LOGAN GREEN; JOHN ZIMMER; BRIAN
ROBERTS; PRASHANT (SEAN) AGGARWAL; BEN HOROWITZ; VALERIE JARRETT;
DAVID LA WEE; HIROSHI MIKITANI; ANN MIURA-KO; MARY AGNES (MAGGIE)
WILDEROTTER; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES
(USA) LLC; JEFFERIES LLC; UBS SECURITIES LLC; STIFEL, NICOLAUS &
COMPANY, INCORPORATED; RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; KEYBANC CAPITAL
MARKETS INC.; COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC; RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES,
INC.; CAN ACCORD GENUITY LLC; EVERCORE GROUP L.L.C.; PIPERJAFFRAY &
CO.; JMP SECURITIES LLC; WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC; KKR CAPITAL
MARKETS LLC; ACADEMY SECURITIES, INC.; BLAYLOCK VAN, LLC; PENSERRA
SECURITIES LLC; SIEBERT CISNEROS SHANK & CO., L.L.C.; THE WILLIAMS
CAPITAL GROUP, L.P.•; CASTLEOAK SECURITIES, L.P.; C.L. KING &
ASSOCIATES, INC.; DREXEL HAMILTON, LLC; GREAT PACIFIC SECURITIES;
LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC; MISCHLER FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.; SAMUEL A
RAMIREZ & COMPANY, INC.; R. SEELAUS & CO., LLC; and TIGRESS
FINANCIAL PARTNERS LLC, Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-575294 (Cal.
Super., San Francisco Cty., April 15, 2019) alleges violation of
the Securities Act of 1933.
According to the complaint, on March 28, 2019, Lyft conducted an
IPO through which it offered 32.5 million shares to the public at a
price of $72 per share for anticipated total proceeds of over
$2.275 billion.
According to the Registration Statement and Prospectus filed in
connection with the IPO, Lyft estimated that its ridesharing
marketplace "is available to over 95% of the U.S. population, as
well as in select cities in Canada." Lyft also asserted that its
"U.S. ridesharing market share was 39% in December 2018, up from
22% in December 2016."
Lyft's focus on its market share gain and position were key selling
points to IPO investors and reiterated again in a CNBC interview
with Lyft co-founders, Defendants Logan Green and John Zimmer, on
the same day as the Company's IPO.
Unbeknownst to investors, however, the Registration Statement's
representations were materially inaccurate, misleading, and
incomplete because they failed to disclose, inter alia, that: (1)
more than 1,000 of the bicycles in Lyft's rideshare program
suffered from safety issues that would lead to their recall; and
(2) Lyft's claimed ridesharing market position was overstated.
Accordingly, the price of the Company's shares was artificially and
materially inflated at the time of the Offering.
As the true facts emerged in the wake of the Offering, the
Company's shares fell sharply to under $57 on April 15, 2019.
Lyft, Inc. operates a peer-to-peer marketplace for on-demand
ridesharing in the United States and Canada. The company was
formerly known as Zimride, Inc. and changed its name to Lyft, Inc.
in 2013. Lyft, Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
MAPLEBEAR INC: Hayes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MAPLEBEAR, INC. DBA
INSTACART ET AL. The case is styled as HAYES, MIMI INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS, Plaintiff v.
MAPLEBEAR, INC. D/B/A INSTACART, DOES 1 TO 100, Defendant, Case No.
CGC19575959 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 14, 2019).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints".
Maplebear Inc., doing business as Instacart, provides online
grocery delivery services primarily in the San Francisco Bay area,
New York, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Dallas, Los Angeles,
Knoxville, Aldenwood Park, Knox County, Woodland Acres, Farragut,
Concord, Amherst, Wooded Acres, Solway, Karns, Wood Creek West,
Contra Costa, Alameda, Solano, Napa, Sonoma, and Washington,
D.C.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by ROBERT STEPHEN ARNS, ESQ.
MCDERMOTT INT'L: No Lead Plaintiff Yet in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court has not
yet appointed a lead plaintiff in the consolidated Edwards and The
Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi lawsuits.
On November 15, 2018, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking class
action status on behalf of purchasers of McDermott common stock and
alleging damages on their behalf arising from allegedly false and
misleading statements made during the class period from January 24,
2018 to October 30, 2018. The case is captioned: Edwards v.
McDermott International, Inc., et al., No. 4:18-cv-04330.
The defendants in the case are: McDermott; David Dickson, the
company's president and chief executive officer; and Stuart Spence,
the company's chief financial officer.
The plaintiff has alleged that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions about the integration of the CB&I
business, certain CB&I projects and their fair values, and our
business, prospects and operations. The plaintiff asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.
On January 14, 2019, a related action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking
class action status on behalf of all shareholders of McDermott
common stock as of April 4, 2018 who had the right to vote on the
Combination, captioned: The Public Employees Retirement System of
Mississippi v. McDermott International, Inc., et al., No.
4:19-cv-00135.
The plaintiff has alleged the defendants (which include the
company's chief executive officer and chief financial officer) made
material misrepresentations and omissions in the proxy statement
the company used in connection with the Combination. The plaintiff
asserted claims under Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The company filed a motion to consolidate the two actions, and the
court granted that motion on February 22, 2019. The court has not
yet appointed a lead plaintiff for either set of claims.
McDermott said, "We expect to file motions to dismiss all of the
claims. We are not able at this time to determine the likelihood of
loss, if any, arising from these matters and, accordingly, no
amounts have been accrued as of March 31, 2019. We believe the
claims are without merit and we intend to defend against them
vigorously."
McDermott International, Inc. provides engineering, procurement,
construction and installation, and technology solutions to the
energy industry worldwide. It operates through five segments:
North, Central and South America; Europe, Africa, Russia and
Caspian; the Middle East and North Africa; Asia Pacific; and
Technology. McDermott International, Inc. was founded in 1923 and
is headquartered in Houston, Texas.
MCDERMOTT INT'L: Unit Still Defends Cantrell Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Cantrell v.
Lutech Resources, Inc.
A former employee of one of the company's subsidiaries commenced a
class action lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards ACT ("FLSA")
entitled Cantrell v. Lutech Resources, Inc., (S.D. Texas 2017) Case
No. 4:17-CV-2679 on or about September 5, 2017, alleging that he
and his fellow class members were not paid one and one half times
their normal hourly wage rates for hours worked that exceeded 40
hours in a work week.
The company's subsidiary has yet to answer the allegations in the
complaint, as agreed by the parties, in order to allow mediation to
take place. The first mediation session commenced in October 2018
and is ongoing.
McDermott said, "We do not believe a risk of material loss is
probable related to this matter, and, accordingly, our reserves for
this matter were not significant as of March 31, 2019. While it is
possible that a loss may be incurred, we are unable at this time,
to estimate the range of potential loss, if any."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
McDermott International, Inc. provides engineering, procurement,
construction and installation, and technology solutions to the
energy industry worldwide. It operates through five segments:
North, Central and South America; Europe, Africa, Russia and
Caspian; the Middle East and North Africa; Asia Pacific; and
Technology. McDermott International, Inc. was founded in 1923 and
is headquartered in Houston, Texas.
MDL 2741: 11 Suits Transferred to N.D. Ca. for Roundup Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eleven lawsuits were transferred on April 24, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco):
(1) THOMAS L. ALLEN AND STEPHANIE ALLEN v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00659. New Case No. 3:19-cv-02212-VC;
(2) DAVID BUTKOVICH AND CANDICE BUTKOVICH v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00653.
New Case No. 3:19-cv-02198-VC;
(3) DUDLEY FISHBURN AND BELINDA FISHBURN v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00656. New Case No. 3:19-cv-02209-VC;
(4) NEIL A. GRANT AND DONNA GRANT v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00664. New Case No. 3:19-cv-02216-VC;
(5) DAVID V. JONES AND SABRINA JONES v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00654. New Case No. 3:19-cv-02199-VC;
(6) THOMAS L. MADIGAN AND NORMA MADIGAN v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00658. New Case No. 3:19-cv-02211-VC;
(7) ALEXANDER P. MALANDRINOS AND ELENI MALANDRINOS v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00655.
New Case No. 3:19-cv-02217-VC;
(8) JEAN L. REED v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00663.
New Case No. 3:19-cv-02215-VC;
(9) ROBERT T. RUBY v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00662. New Case No. 3:19-cv-02214-VC;
(10) PATRICIA A. SWANSON AND DALE E. SWANSON v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00674.
New Case No. 3:19-cv-02218-VC; and
(11) BOBBY WINTERRINGER v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00661. New Case No. 3:19-cv-02213-VC.
The lawsuits are consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
titled In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
3:16-md-02741-VC.
The lawsuits arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged Roundup(R)-related
injuries. The Plaintiffs seek damages for the injuries they
allegedly suffered as a direct and proximate result of the
Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the
design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the
herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.
The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.
Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth S. Webb, Esq.
BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 222-2222
Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
MONDELEZ INT'L: Proposed Consent Order Due May 28
-------------------------------------------------
Mondelez International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the proposed consent
order reflecting the agreement among the parties in an antitrust
lawsuit must be filed by the next court date on May 28, 2019.
On April 1, 2015, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
("CFTC") filed a complaint against Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez
Global LLC ("Mondelez Global") in the U.S. District Court (the
"Court") for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
(the "CFTC action") following its investigation of activities
related to the trading of December 2011 wheat futures contracts
that occurred prior to the spin-off of Kraft Foods Group.
The complaint alleges that Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global
(1) manipulated or attempted to manipulate the wheat markets during
the fall of 2011; (2) violated position limit levels for wheat
futures and (3) engaged in non-competitive trades by trading both
sides of exchange-for-physical Chicago Board of Trade wheat
contracts.
The CFTC seeks civil monetary penalties of either triple the
monetary gain for each violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (the
"Act") or $1 million for each violation of Section 6(c)(1), 6(c)(3)
or 9(a)(2) of the Act and $140,000 for each additional violation of
the Act, plus post-judgment interest; an order of permanent
injunction prohibiting Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global from
violating specified provisions of the Act; disgorgement of profits;
and costs and fees.
The parties have reached an agreement in principle to resolve the
CFTC action and have been instructed by the Court to submit a
proposed consent order reflecting their agreement prior to the next
court date on May 28, 2019.
Additionally, several class action complaints were filed against
Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois by investors in wheat futures
and options on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated.
The complaints make similar allegations as those made in the CFTC
action and seek class action certification; an unspecified amount
for damages, interest and unjust enrichment; costs and fees; and
injunctive, declaratory and other unspecified relief. In June 2015,
these suits were consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois.
The company is contesting the plaintiffs' request for class
certification. "It is not possible to predict the outcome of these
matters; however, based on the company's Separation and
Distribution Agreement with Kraft Foods Group dated as of September
27, 2012, we expect to bear any monetary penalties or other
payments in connection with the CFTC action," the company said.
Although the CFTC action and the class action complaints involve
the same alleged conduct, a resolution or decision with respect to
one of the matters may not be dispositive as to the outcome of the
other matter.
Mondelez International, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and markets snack food and beverage products
worldwide. The company was formerly known as Kraft Foods Inc. and
changed its name to Mondelez International, Inc. in October 2012.
Mondelez International, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is based in
Deerfield, Illinois.
MONSANTO CO: Accused by Holeman of Selling Defective Roundup(R)
---------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY HOLEMAN v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00986 (E.D.
Mo., April 24, 2019), accuses the Defendant of negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.
The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.
Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth S. Webb, Esq.
BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 222-2222
Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
MONSANTO CO: Brown Sues Over Roundup-Related Injuries
-----------------------------------------------------
LISA BROWN v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00978 (E.D. Mo.,
April 24, 2019), is brought for damages allegedly suffered by the
Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.
The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.
Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth S. Webb, Esq.
BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 222-2222
Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
MONSANTO CO: Denson Sues for Roundup-Related Injuries and Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY DENSON v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00975 (E.D.
Mo., April 24, 2019), alleges that as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant' actions and inactions, the Plaintiff was exposed
to Roundup and suffered and will continue to suffer injuries and
damages.
The lawsuit is brought for damages allegedly suffered by the
Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The
Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective,
dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and
sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to
the dangers associated with its use.
Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth S. Webb, Esq.
BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 222-2222
Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
MONSANTO CO: Exposure to Roundup Resulted to Death, Hudson Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JANET B. HUDSON, Individually and as ANTICIPATED REPRESENTATIVE of
the Estate of BENJAMIN E. HUDSON v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES
1-50, Case No. 4:19-cv-00983 (E.D. Mo., April 24, 2019), alleges
that as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup,
Plaintiff-Decedent developed non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, which was
diagnosed for the first time in May 2016, and from which disease
the Plaintiff-Decedent died on February 20, 2017.
The lawsuit is brought for damages allegedly suffered by the
Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The
Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective,
dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and
sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to
the dangers associated with its use.
Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric D. Holland, Esq.
HOLLAND LAW FIRM
300 North Tucker, Suite 801
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 241-8111
Facsimile: (314) 241-5554
E-mail: eholland@allfela.com
- and -
Michael S. Werner, Esq.
PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
Harbor Park Drive
Port Washington, NY 11050
Telephone: (516) 723-4631
Facsimile: (516) 723-4731
E-mail: mwerner@yourlawyer.com
MONSANTO CO: Faces Belcher Suit Alleging Roundup-Related Injuries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY BELCHER v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00985-SNLJ
(E.D. Mo., April 24, 2019), is brought for damages allegedly
suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the
Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the
design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the
herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.
The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.
Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth S. Webb, Esq.
BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 222-2222
Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
MONSANTO CO: Faces Pease Suit Alleging Roundup-Related Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL PEASE v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00984 (E.D.
Mo., April 24, 2019), is brought for damages allegedly suffered by
the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.
The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.
Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth S. Webb, Esq.
BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 222-2222
Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
MONSANTO CO: Griffin Sues in Mo. Over Injuries Due to Roundup(R)
----------------------------------------------------------------
NORA GRIFFIN v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00982 (E.D. Mo.,
April 24, 2019), is brought for damages allegedly suffered by the
Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.
The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.
Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth S. Webb, Esq.
BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 222-2222
Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
MONSANTO CO: Peterson Sues Over Roundup Exposure-Related Injuries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA PETERSON and RONALD PETERSON v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00979 (E.D. Mo., April 24, 2019), alleges that as a direct
and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup(R), Ms. Peterson
developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in 2008.
The lawsuit is brought for damages allegedly suffered by the
Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.
The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.
Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth S. Webb, Esq.
BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 222-2222
Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
MONSANTO CO: Smith Sues Over Injuries From Roundup(R) Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
DIANE SMITH and F. ALLEN SMITH v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00980 (E.D. Mo., April 24, 2019), is brought for personal
injuries allegedly sustained by exposure to Roundup(R) containing
the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated
tallow amine.
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup(R),
Ms. Smith developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in 2015. Mr. Smith has
a claim for loss of consortium related to the injuries of his wife,
according to the complaint.
The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.
Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth S. Webb, Esq.
BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 222-2222
Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
MONSANTO CO: Sued by Young-Beverly Over Roundup-Related Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA YOUNG-BEVERLY v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00981
(E.D. Mo., April 24, 2019), is brought for damages allegedly
suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the
Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the
design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the
herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.
The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.
Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth S. Webb, Esq.
BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 222-2222
Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Bartley Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bartley, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and DOES 1 to
100, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01084-NCC (E.D.
Mo., May 1, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the
Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.
The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's
injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated
victims across the country, were avoidable.
The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.
Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
MONSANTO COMPANY: Dokken Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Dokken, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and DOES 1 to
100, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01078 (E.D. Mo.,
May 1, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff,
as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.
The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's
injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated
victims across the country, were avoidable.
The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.
Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
MULLEN & IANNARONE: Weinberg Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Mullen & Iannarone,
P.C. and Liberatore Iannarone for violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The case is captioned Alexander
J. Weinberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, vs. Mullen & Iannarone, P.C. and Liberatore
Iannarone, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02359-JFB-GRB (E.D.N.Y.,
April 23, 2019). Plaintiff Alexander J. Weinberg alleges that the
Defendants failed to inform him that his alleged debt was
increasing at the time it was assigned or otherwise transferred to
Defendants for collection.
Mullen & Iannarone, P.C. is a law firm located at 300 East Main
Street, Suite 3 Smithtown, NY. It serves cases involving real
estate, criminal defense, business law, collections and
foreclosures. Liberatore J. Iannarone is the managing partner of
the Mullen & Iannarone, P.C. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, New York 11530
Telephone: (516) 203-7600
Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
Email: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com
NATURE DELIVERED: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nature Delivered Inc.
The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nature
Delivered Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04401 (S.D. N.Y., May
14, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Nature Delivered Inc. retails snacks online. The company provides
graze subscription boxes as per taste, dietary, and delivery
preferences of buyers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
Lipsky Lowe LLP
630 Third Avenue
Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
NCAA: Belcha Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Belcha and Johnny Johnson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01883-JMS-TAB
(S.D. Ind., May 9, 2019) seeks to obtain redress for injuries
sustained as a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the
health and safety of generations of The University of Houston
("Houston") student-athletes.
Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiffs experienced, Defendant failed to implement
adequate procedures to protect Plaintiffs and other Houston
football players from the long-term dangers associated with them,
says the complaint.
As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiffs
and countless former Houston football players suffered brain and
other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such,
Plaintiffs bring this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate
those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable.
Plaintiffs are natural persons and citizens of the State of Texas.
The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at Hampton.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeff Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: 713.554.9099
Fax: 713.554.9098
Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com
- and -
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 312.589.6370
Fax: 312.589.6378
Email: jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
- and -
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
EDELSON PC
123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94107
Phone: 415.212.9300
Fax: 415.373.9435
Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com
NCAA: Kubik Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Kubik, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01884-TWP-MPB (S.D. Ind., May 9, 2019)
seeks to obtain redress for injuries sustained as a result of
Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of Missouri State University ("MSU") student-athletes.
Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiffs experienced, Defendant failed to implement
adequate procedures to protect Plaintiffs and other MSU football
players from the long-term dangers associated with them, says the
complaint.
As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiffs
and countless former MSU football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such,
Plaintiffs bring this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate
those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable.
Plaintiff Brad Kubik is a natural person and a citizen of the State
of Iowa.
The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at Hampton.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeff Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: 713.554.9099
Fax: 713.554.9098
Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com
- and -
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 312.589.6370
Fax: 312.589.6378
Email: jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
- and -
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
EDELSON PC
123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94107
Phone: 415.212.9300
Fax: 415.373.9435
Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com
OI SA: Still Defends Class Suit Related to Customer Service Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oi S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a
class action suit related to TNL's alleged non-compliance with
customer service regulations.
The company is a defendant in a civil class action lawsuit filed by
the Federal Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Publico Federal)
seeking recovery for alleged collective moral damages caused by
TNL's alleged non-compliance with the Customer Service (Serviço de
Atendimento ao Consumidor - SAC) regulations established by the
Ministry of Justice (Ministerio da Justica).
TNL presented its defense and asked for a change of venue to
federal court in Rio de Janeiro, where the company is
headquartered. Other defendants have been named and await service
of process. The amount involved in this action is R$300 million.
Oi S.A. said, "As a result of a corporate reorganization in 2012,
we have succeeded to TNL's position as a defendant in this action.
As of December 31, 2018, we deemed the risk of loss as possible
with respect to these lawsuits and had not made any provisions with
respect to this action since it was awaiting the court's initial
decision.
Oi S.A. is one of the principal integrated telecommunications
service providers in Brazil with approximately 57.1 million revenue
generating units, or RGUs, as of December 31, 2018. The company
operates throughout Brazil and offer a range of integrated
telecommunications services that include Residential Services,
Personal Mobility Services and B2B Services.
OI SA: Suits Related to Re-Opening of Service Centers Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oi S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend 44
class action suits related to the demand of the re-opening of
customer service centers.
The company is a defendant in 44 civil class actions filed by the
Attorney General of the National Treasury jointly with certain
consumer agencies demanding the re-opening of customer service
centers. The lower courts have rendered decisions in all of these
proceedings, some of which have been unfavorable to the company.
All of these proceedings are currently under appeal.
Oi S.A. said, "As of December 31, 2018, we had recorded provisions
in the amount of R$10.2 million for those claims in respect of
which we deemed the risk of loss as probable."
Oi S.A. is one of the principal integrated telecommunications
service providers in Brazil with approximately 57.1 million revenue
generating units, or RGUs, as of December 31, 2018. The company
operates throughout Brazil and offer a range of integrated
telecommunications services that include Residential Services,
Personal Mobility Services and B2B Services.
PACIFIC FERTILITY: Chart Appeals Decision in AB Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Chart Industries, Inc., filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the consolidated lawsuit entitled In re: Pacific
Fertility Center Litigation, Case No. 3:18-cv-01586-JSC, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, a class action
lawsuit was filed on March 13, 2018, against Pacific Fertility
Center and styled as S. M., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pacific Fertility Center
and Prelude Fertility, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-01586.
Pacific Fertility Center Los Angeles is a highly advanced fertility
clinic with offices in Glendale and Los Angeles, California.
The appellate case is captioned as A. B., et al. v. Chart
Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-15885, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript must be ordered by May 23, 2019;
-- Transcript is due on June 24, 2019;
-- Appellant Chart Industries, Inc.'s opening brief is due on
August 5, 2019;
-- Appellees A. B., C. D., E. F., G. H., I. J., K. L.,
Lawrence Wong and Sherlene Wong's answering brief is due on
September 5, 2019; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees A. B., C. D., E. F., G. H., I. J. and K. L.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
Lexi Hazam, Esq.
Sarah R. London, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
lhazam@lchb.com
slondon@lchb.com
- and -
Tracey Berger Cowan, Esq.
PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite # 1400
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 426-5641
Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
E-mail: tcowan@pwcklegal.com
- and -
Jordan Elias, Esq.
Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
Dylan Hughes, Esq.
GIRARD GIBBS LLP
601 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: je@girardgibbs.com
ehg@girardgibbs.com
dsh@girardgibbs.com
- and -
Steven M. Tindall, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
505 14th Street, Suite 1110
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
E-mail: smt@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Adam Wolfson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3673
E-mail: adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
Objectors-Appellees SHERLENE WONG and LAWRENCE WONG are represented
by:
David Rosenberg-Wohl, Esq.
MARION'S INN LLP
1611 Telegraph Avenue
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 317-7756
E-mail: david@hrw-law.com
Defendant-Appellants CHART INDUSTRIES, INC., is represented by:
Molly Moriarty Lane, Esq.
Thomas M. Peterson, Esq.
Benjamin Patrick Smith, Esq.
Megan A. Suehiro, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market Street
Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 442-1000
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
E-mail: mlane@morganlewis.com
thomas.peterson@morganlewis.com
bpsmith@morganlewis.com
megan.suehiro@morganlewis.com
- and -
David L. Schrader, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Telephone: (213) 612-7370
E-mail: dschrader@morganlewis.com
PACIFIC FERTILITY: MSO Appeals Decision in AB Suit to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Pacific MSO, LLC, filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the consolidated lawsuit entitled In re: Pacific Fertility Center
Litigation, Case No. 3:18-cv-01586-JSC, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, a class action
lawsuit was filed on March 13, 2018, against Pacific Fertility
Center and styled as S. M., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pacific Fertility Center
and Prelude Fertility, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-01586.
Pacific Fertility Center Los Angeles is a highly advanced fertility
clinic with offices in Glendale and Los Angeles, California.
The appellate case is captioned as A. B., et al. v. Pacific MSO,
LLC, et al., Case No. 19-15886, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript must be ordered by May 23, 2019;
-- Transcript is due on June 24, 2019;
-- Appellant Pacific MSO, LLC's opening brief is due on
August 5, 2019;
-- Appellees A. B., C. D., E. F., G. H., I. J., K. L.,
Lawrence Wong and Sherlene Wong's answering brief is due on
September 5, 2019; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees A. B., C. D., E. F., G. H., I. J. and K. L.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
Lexi Hazam, Esq.
Sarah R. London, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
lhazam@lchb.com
slondon@lchb.com
- and -
Tracey Berger Cowan, Esq.
PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite # 1400
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 426-5641
Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
E-mail: tcowan@pwcklegal.com
- and -
Jordan Elias, Esq.
Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
Dylan Hughes, Esq.
GIRARD GIBBS LLP
601 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: je@girardgibbs.com
ehg@girardgibbs.com
dsh@girardgibbs.com
- and -
Steven M. Tindall, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
505 14th Street, Suite 1110
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
E-mail: smt@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Adam Wolfson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3673
E-mail: adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
Objectors-Appellees SHERLENE WONG and LAWRENCE WONG are represented
by:
David Rosenberg-Wohl, Esq.
MARION'S INN LLP
1611 Telegraph Avenue
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 317-7756
E-mail: david@hrw-law.com
Defendant-Appellants PACIFIC MSO, LLC, is represented by:
Erin McCalmon Bosman, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 720-5178
E-mail: ebosman@mofo.com
- and -
David Frank McDowell, Jr., Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 892-5383
E-mail: dmcdowell@mofo.com
- and -
William Tarantino, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
E-mail: wtarantino@mofo.com
PACIFIC FERTILITY: Prelude Appeals Ruling in AB Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Prelude Fertility, Inc., filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the consolidated lawsuit styled In re: Pacific Fertility
Center Litigation, Case No. 3:18-cv-01586-JSC, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, a class action
lawsuit was filed on March 13, 2018, against Pacific Fertility
Center and styled as S. M., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pacific Fertility Center
and Prelude Fertility, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-01586.
Pacific Fertility Center Los Angeles is a highly advanced fertility
clinic with offices in Glendale and Los Angeles, California.
The appellate case is captioned as A. B., et al. v. Prelude
Fertility, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-15888, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript must be ordered by May 23, 2019;
-- Transcript is due on June 24, 2019;
-- Appellant Prelude Fertility, Inc.'s opening brief is due on
August 5, 2019;
-- Appellees A. B., C. D., E. F., G. H., I. J., K. L.,
Lawrence Wong and Sherlene Wong's answering brief is due on
September 5, 2019; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees A. B., C. D., E. F., G. H., I. J. and K. L.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
Lexi Hazam, Esq.
Sarah R. London, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
lhazam@lchb.com
slondon@lchb.com
- and -
Tracey Berger Cowan, Esq.
PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite # 1400
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 426-5641
Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
E-mail: tcowan@pwcklegal.com
- and -
Jordan Elias, Esq.
Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
Dylan Hughes, Esq.
GIRARD GIBBS LLP
601 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: je@girardgibbs.com
ehg@girardgibbs.com
dsh@girardgibbs.com
- and -
Steven M. Tindall, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
505 14th Street, Suite 1110
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
E-mail: smt@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Adam Wolfson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3673
E-mail: adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
Objectors-Appellees SHERLENE WONG and LAWRENCE WONG are represented
by:
David Rosenberg-Wohl, Esq.
MARION'S INN LLP
1611 Telegraph Avenue
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 317-7756
E-mail: david@hrw-law.com
Defendant-Appellant PRELUDE FERTILITY, INC., is represented by:
Erin McCalmon Bosman, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 720-5178
E-mail: ebosman@mofo.com
- and -
David Frank McDowell, Jr., Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 892-5383
E-mail: dmcdowell@mofo.com
- and -
William Tarantino, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
E-mail: wtarantino@mofo.com
PARAMOUNT PAYMENT: Fabricant Sues over Autodialled Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Paramount Payment
Systems and Paramount Holding Company LLC for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The case is captioned
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. PARAMOUNT PAYMENT SYSTEMS; PARAMOUNT
HOLDING COMPANY LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of
them, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-03148 (C.D. Cal., April 23,
2019).
Beginning in or around March of 2018, Plaintiff Terry Fabricant has
allegedly received multiple telemarketing calls from the
Defendants, even if Plaintiff's cellular telephone numbers ending
in -1083 was already added to the National Do-Not-Call Registry on
or about June 4, 2008. Plaintiff Terry Fabricant asserts that
Paramount did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to
make calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks damages and any other available legal
or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendants.
Paramount is a credit card processing servicing company
headquartered at 841 E Fairview Ave Ste 101, Meridian, Idaho. It
provides payment processing services in several states including
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
Kelsey L. Kuberka, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com kkuberka@toddflaw.com
PATRIOT ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces Verbis Labor Suit in Sacramento
------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Patriot Environmental Services Inc. The case is assigned to SILVIO
VERBIS, III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PATRIOT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC.; and
DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00254430-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super., Sacramento Cty., April 15, 2019).
Patriot Environmental Services, Inc. was founded in 1977. The
company's line of business includes provides trucking or transfer
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary R. Basham, Esq.
BASHAM LAW GROUP
8801 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 177
Sacramento, CA 95826
Telephone: (916) 282-0841
Facsimile: (916) 266-7478
E-mail: gary@bashamlawgroup.com
PAYCHEX INC: Errickson Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Errickson and Mark Trovato individually and on Behalf of
All Similarly Situated Employees, Plaintiffs, v. PAYCHEX, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-06347 (W.D. N.Y., May 9, 2019) seeks to
recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under the Federal Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, ("FLSA"); and unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under New York
Minimum Wage Act, and the New York Wage Payment Act, (collectively,
the "NYLL").
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees were hired by
Defendant to assist its clients with their payroll and benefits
services. However, Defendant failed to properly compensate
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for all hours worked. The
Defendant completed this illegal act by paying Plaintiffs and
others similarly situated under the guise of a salary. However,
Plaintiffs' duties did not exempt them from the overtime
requirements mandated by the FLSA and NYLL. Defendant willfully
misclassified Plaintiffs and others similarly situated as salaried
employees for the purpose of not paying them overtime, says the
complaint.
Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as Implementation
Coordinators and/or Implementation Project Managers.
Defendant is a human resources services company headquartered in
Rochester, New York and operates in multiple states and maintains
over 100 offices across the country.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
Kelly A. Burgy, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
Baltimore, MD 21201
Phone: (410) 244-7005
Email: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
kaburgy@nicholllaw.com
PIER 1: Oral Arguments in Town of Davie Police Suit on June 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pier 1 Imports, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended March 2, 2019, that the court has scheduled oral
arguments on June 12, 2019, in the class action suit entitled, Town
of Davie Police Pension Plan, Plaintiff, v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc.,
Alexander W. Smith and Charles H. Turner, Defendants.
Putative class action complaints were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division
against Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and Charles H.
Turner in August and October 2015 alleging violations under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The lawsuits, which have been consolidated into a single action
captioned Town of Davie Police Pension Plan, Plaintiff, v. Pier 1
Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and Charles H. Turner,
Defendants, were filed on behalf of a purported putative class of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired stock of Pier 1
Imports, Inc. between April 10, 2014 and December 17, 2015.
The plaintiffs seek to recover damages purportedly caused by the
Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint seeks certification as a class action, unspecified
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.
On August 10, 2017, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint, while providing the plaintiffs an
opportunity to replead their complaint. An amended complaint was
filed with the court on September 25, 2017. On June 25, 2018, the
court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, with prejudice.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed a notice of appeal and a related
appellate brief and the Company filed its reply brief in January
2019. The court has scheduled oral arguments on June 12, 2019.
Pier 1 said, "Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be
predicted with certainty, the Company believes that this lawsuit is
without merit and intends to defend against it vigorously."
Pier 1 Imports, Inc. engages in the retail sale of decorative
accessories, furniture, candles, housewares, gifts, and seasonal
products. The company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in
Fort Worth, Texas.
PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING: Keivan Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
KEIVAN SARRAF, DDS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES,
INC. d/b/a PCS CONSULTANTS, INC. and RAMIRO CORDOVA, Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-04049 (C.D. Cal., May 9, 2019) is a class action
under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure against
Defendants for their violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), and the regulations promulgated
thereunder.
On January 21, 2019, Defendants, or someone acting on their behalf,
used a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to
send to Plaintiff's telephone facsimile machine an unsolicited
advertisement. Plaintiff received the two-page Fax through
Plaintiff's facsimile machine.
The Fax to Plaintiff and the similar facsimile advertisements sent
by Defendants, lacked a proper notice on its first page informing
the recipient of the ability and means to avoid future unsolicited
advertisements and thereby contained numerous violations of the
TCPA. The Defendants violated the TCPA by transmitting the Fax to
Plaintiff and to the Class members without obtaining their prior
express invitation or permission and by not displaying the proper
opt-out notice, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Keivan Sarraf, DDS, Inc., is a citizen of the State of
California and has its principal place of business in Beverly
Hills, California.
Defendant Professional Consulting Services, Inc., is a California
corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-524-2820
Facsimile: 954-524-2822
Email: seth@epllc.com
QUANTENNA COMMUNICATIONS: Clarke Files Suit Over Sale to ON
-----------------------------------------------------------
GERALD CLARKE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. QUANTENNA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., SAM
HEIDARI, GLENDA DORCHAK, NED HOOPER, HAROLD HUGHES, JACK LAZAR,
JOHN SCULL, and MARK A. STEVENS, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-02508-WHA (N.D. Cal., May 9, 2019) is a stockholder class
action on behalf of Plaintiff and all other public stockholders of
Quantenna Communications, Inc., against Quantenna and the Company's
Board of Directors for violations of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and breaches of fiduciary duty as
a result of Defendants' efforts to sell the Company to ON
Semiconductor ("Parent"), and Raptor Operations Sub, Inc. ("Merger
Sub," collectively with Parent, "ON Semiconductor") as a result of
an unfair process for an unfair price, and to enjoin an upcoming
stockholder vote on a proposed all cash transaction valued at
approximately $936 million (the "Proposed Transaction").
The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in a March
27, 2018, filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") on Form 8-K attaching the definitive Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Under the terms of the Merger
Agreement, Quantenna will become an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of ON Semiconductor, and Quantenna stockholders will
receive $24.50 in cash for each share of Quantenna common stock
they own. As a result of the Proposed Transaction, Plaintiff and
other Quantenna stockholders will be frozen out of any future
ownership interest in the Corporation. Thereafter, on May 3, 2019,
Quantenna filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A (the
"Preliminary Proxy") with the SEC in support of the Proposed
Transaction.
According to the complaint, in approving the Proposed Transaction,
the Individual Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties of
loyalty, good faith, due care and disclosure by, inter alia, (i)
agreeing to sell Quantenna without first taking steps to ensure
that Plaintiff and Class members (defined below) would obtain
adequate, fair and maximum consideration under the circumstances;
and (ii) engineering the Proposed Transaction to benefit themselves
and/or ON Semiconductor without regard for Quantenna public
stockholders.
In violation of the Exchange Act and in further violation of their
fiduciary duties, Defendants caused to be filed the materially
deficient Preliminary Proxy on May 3, 2019 with SEC in an effort to
solicit stockholders to vote their Quantenna shares in favor of the
Proposed Transaction. The Preliminary Proxy is materially
deficient, deprives Quantenna stockholders of the information they
need to make an intelligent, informed and rational decision of
whether to vote their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
and is thus in breach of the Defendants fiduciary duties, says the
complaint.
Accordingly, this action seeks to enjoin the Proposed Transaction
and compel the Individual Defendants to properly exercise their
fiduciary duties to Quantenna stockholders.
Plaintiff is a citizen of Illinois and, at all times relevant
hereto, has been a Quantenna stockholder.
Quantenna designs, develops, and markets wireless communication
solutions enabling wireless local area networking in the
Asia-Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the
Americas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Evan J. Smith, Esq.
Ryan P. Cardona, Esq.
BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (877) 534-2590
Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
Email: esmith@brodskysmith.com
rcardona@brodskysmith.com
RAY REYNOLDS: Clark Sues over Misleading Credit Repair Services
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Corporate Credit
Ray Reynolds for violations of the California False Advertising
Act, the Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies
Act. The case is captioned LARRY CLARK, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CORPORATE CREDIT
RAY REYNOLDS, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
30-2019-01065701-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super., Cty. of Orange, April 24,
2019).
Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against Defendant to
stop its practice of falsely advertising its television services
and to obtain redress for a California class of consumers who
changed position, within the applicable statute of limitations
period, as a result of Defendant's false and misleading
advertisements. Defendant's misrepresentations to Plaintiff and
others similarly situated caused them to purchase or attempt to
obtain these credit repair services, which Plaintiff and others
similarly situated would not have purchased or attempted to
purchase absent these misrepresentations by Defendant and its
employees.
Headquartered in California, Corporate Credit Ray Reynolds offers
professional credit services. The company claimed that it has
helped clients over three decades establish corporate credit and
has helped its clients build over 3.6 Billion in corporate credit.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
RESORT CONFIRMATIONS: Wendell H. Stone Sues over Unsolicited Fax
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Resort
Confirmations, Inc. for its violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. The case is captioned by WENDELL H. STONE COMPANY,
INC. d/b/a STONE & COMPANY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RESORT CONFIRMATIONS,
INC., d/b/a RCI-Promotions, a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01178-CCB (D. Md., April 23, 2019). Plaintiff Wendell
H. Stone Company, Inc. alleges that the Defendant engages in
illegal practice of sending unsolicited fax advertisements.
Resort Confirmations, Inc. is a corporation incorporated and
existing under the laws of the state of Florida. Defendant Resort
Confirmations, Inc. does business as RCI-Promotions. Its principal
office address is 111 S. Calvert Street, Baltimore MD. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Martin E. Wolf, Esq.
GORDON, WOLF, & CARNEY, CHTD.
100 W. Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 100
Towson, MD 21204
Telephone: (410) 825-2300
Facsimile: (410) 825-0066
E-mail: mwolf@GWCfirm.com
- and -
Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 213-0675
Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
RESTAURANTS BRANDS: Settlement in Class Suit v. TDL Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on April 29, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019,
that the court has approved the settlement in the class action
lawsuit initiated against The TDL Group Corp., a subsidiary of the
company.
In March 2019, Partnership settled the two class action lawsuits
filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against The TDL
Group Corp., a subsidiary of Partnership ("TDL"), and certain other
defendants, as described in Partnership's Annual Report on Form
10-K filed with the SEC on February 22, 2019.
Under the terms of the settlement, TDL will contribute C$10 million
to the Tim Hortons Advertising Fund in Canada over two years, such
amount to be spent on marketing activities. In addition, TDL will
pay C$2 million for legal and administrative expenses. The court
approved the settlement on April 29, 2019. These amounts were
accrued by TDL during 2018.
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership operates and
franchises quick service restaurants. The company operates through
three segments: Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes. The company
was founded in 1954 and is headquartered in Toronto, Canada.
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership is a subsidiary
of Restaurant Brands International Inc.
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Hinkle Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Robin L. Hinkle filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled ROBIN L. HINKLE, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. CASEY JOE MATTHEWS, TIMOTHY MAY and
CONNIE MAY, Husband and wife, SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an
Illinois Corporation; SAFE-GUARD PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, A
Georgia limited liability company; and JOHNNY HINKLE, Case No.
2:15-cv-13856, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of West Virginia at Charleston.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court granted in 2018 the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of Settlement in the case.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated
individuals, claimed that assignors of Settling Defendant and other
non-parties to this settlement agreement violated West Virginia's
insurance licensing requirements.
The appellate case is captioned as Robin Hinkle v. Casey Matthews,
et al., Case No. 19-1451, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ROBIN L. HINKLE, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, is represented by:
Raymond S. Franks, II, Esq.
Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301-0000
Telephone: (304) 345-6555
E-mail: rfranks@baileyglasser.com
jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Howard M. Persinger, III, Esq.
PERSINGER & PERSINGER
237 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 346-9333
E-mail: hmp3@persingerlaw.com
Defendant-Appellee CASEY JOE MATTHEWS is represented by:
C. William Davis, Esq.
RICHARDSON, KEMPER, HANCOCK & DAVIS
602 Law & Commerce Building
P. O. Box 1778
Bluefield, WV 24701-0000
Telephone: (304) 327-7158
Defendants-Appellees TIMOTHY MAY, and CONNIE MAY, husband and wife,
are represented by:
David Francis Nelson, Sr., Esq.
HENDRICKSON & LONG, PLLC
214 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 720-5518
E-mail: dnelson@handl.com
Defendant-Appellee SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INCORPORATED, an
Illinois corporation, is represented by:
Daniel Joseph Konrad, Esq.
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
611 3rd Avenue
P. O. Box 2185
Huntington, WV 25701-0000
Telephone: (304) 529-6181
E-mail: daniel.konrad@dinsmore.com
Defendant-Appellee SAFE-GUARD PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a
Georgia limited liability company, is represented by:
Jeffrey D. Van Volkenburg, Esq.
Debra Tedeschi Varner, Esq.
James Alan Varner, Sr., Esq.
VARNER & VAN VOLKENBURG PLLC
P. O. Box 2370
Clarksburg, WV 26302-2370
Telephone: (304) 918-2842
E-mail: jdvanvolkenburg@wvlawyers.com
dtvarner@wvlawyers.com
javarner@wvlawyers.com
SEABOARD CORP: Continues to Defend Pork Buyers' Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Seaboard Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2019, that the company continues
to defend against antitrust litigation commenced by purchasers of
pork products.
On June 28, 2018, Wanda Duryea and 11 other indirect purchasers of
pork products, acting on behalf of themselves and a putative class
of indirect purchasers of pork products, filed a class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
against several pork processors, including Seaboard Foods and Agri
Stats, Inc., a company described in the complaint as a data sharing
service.
Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional
class action complaints making similar claims on behalf of putative
classes of direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.
The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in
January 2009, the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of pork products in violation of
U.S. antitrust laws by coordinating their output and limiting
production, allegedly facilitated by the exchange of non-public
information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand through
Agri Stats, Inc.
The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also include causes of action under various state laws,
including state antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer
protection statutes, and state common law claims for unjust
enrichment.
The complaints also allege that the defendants concealed this
conduct from the plaintiffs and the members of the putative
classes. The relief sought in the respective complaints includes
treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative classes.
The complaints were amended and consolidated, and the cases are now
organized into three consolidated putative class actions brought on
behalf of (a) direct purchasers, (b) consumer indirect purchasers,
and (c) commercial and institutional indirect purchasers.
The amended complaints named Seaboard Corporation as an additional
defendant.
Seaboard intends to defend these cases vigorously.
Seaboard said, "It is impossible at this stage either to determine
the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome resulting
from these suits, or to estimate the amount of potential loss, if
any, resulting from the suits."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Seaboard Corporation operates as a diverse agribusiness and
transportation company worldwide. The company's Pork division
produces and sells fresh pork products, such as loins, tenderloins,
and ribs, as well as frozen pork products to further processors,
foodservice operators, grocery stores, distributors, and retail
outlets. Seaboard Corporation was founded in 1918 and is
headquartered in Merriam, Kansas.
SHE IS ORGANIC: Vasquez-Cossio Sues Over Automatic Service Renewal
------------------------------------------------------------------
INEZ VASQUEZ-COSSIO, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SHE IS ORGANIC, LLC, a California
limited liability company; and DOES 1 - 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 30-2019-01068651-CU-MT-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.,
May 9, 2019) is a class action on behalf of Plaintiff and a class
of others similarly situated consisting of all persons in
California who, within the applicable statute of limitations period
up to and including the date of judgment in this action, purchased
subscriptions for products, from Defendant.
The Plaintiffs seek damages, restitution, injunctive and/or other
equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs arising
under California Business and Professions Code.
Defendant operates a website which markets organic tampons and
related products. Plaintiff purchased a subscription plan from
Defendant in California during the Class Period.
According to the complaint, the Defendant made automatic renewal or
continuous service offers to consumers in California and (a) at the
time of making the automatic renewal or continuous service offers,
failed to present the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous
service offer terms, in a clear and conspicuous manner and in
visual proximity to the request for consent to the offer before the
subscription or purchasing agreement was fulfilled in violation of
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code; (b) charged Plaintiff's and Class Members'
credit or debit cards, or third-party account without first
obtaining Plaintiff's and Class Members' affirmative consent to the
agreement containing the automatic renewal offer terms or
continuous service offer terms in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code; and (c) failed to provide an acknowledgment that includes the
automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, cancellation
policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is
capable of being retained by the consumer in violation of Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Awaits Court's Approval of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Court overseeing
the airline fees-related class suit has indicated that it will
issue a written decision on the motion to approve the settlement.
On July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the Company,
American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines to limit
capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.
Since then, a number of similar class action complaints were filed
in the United States District Courts for the Central District of
California, the Northern District of California, the District of
Columbia, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of
Florida, the Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of
Illinois, the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of
Louisiana, the District of Minnesota, the District of New Jersey,
the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New
York, the Middle District of North Carolina, the District of
Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern
District of Texas, the District of Vermont, and the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.
On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation centralized the cases to the United States District
Court in the District of Columbia. On March 25, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the
consolidated cases alleging that the defendants conspired to
restrict capacity from 2009 to present.
The plaintiffs seek to bring their claims on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased tickets for domestic airline travel on the
defendants' airlines from July 1, 2011 to present. They seek treble
damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and expenses.
On May 11, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint, and on October 28, 2016, the Court denied this
motion.
On December 20, 2017, the Company reached an agreement to settle
these cases with a proposed class of all persons who purchased
domestic airline transportation services from July 1, 2011, to the
date of the settlement.
The Company agreed to pay $15 million and to provide certain
cooperation with the plaintiffs as set forth in the settlement
agreement. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement
on January 3, 2018.
The plaintiffs provided notice to the settlement class pursuant to
a notice program approved by the Court, and the deadline for class
members to opt out or object was January 4, 2019.
The fairness hearing for the settlement was held on March 22, 2019,
and the Court indicated that it will issue a written decision on
the motion to approve the settlement. The Company denies all
allegations of wrongdoing.
Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the United States and
near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in
1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas.
SPARKS NETWORKS: Benabu Class Action over Auto-Renewal Concluded
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks SE said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the case entitled,
Stephanie J. Benabu vs. Videotron Ltee and Affinitas GmbH, et al.,
has been concluded.
On November 2, 2017, Spark Networks SE completed the Affinitas /
Spark Merger pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated May
2, 2017, entered into by Spark Networks SE, Affinitas, Spark and
Chardonnay Merger Sub, Inc.
On August 1, 2016, Affinitas was served with a copy of an
application to bring a class action lawsuit and to appoint the
status of representative plaintiff filed with the Superior Court of
the District of Montreal.
The potential suit relates to the practice of automatically
renewing the services provided to Canadian users of Affinitas'
products at standard pricing after a discounted trial period
without active consent by the consumer. Affinitas ceased engaging
in these practices and entered into a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs.
The settlement agreement was ratified by the Superior Court of the
District of Montreal on May 8, 2018. The closing judgment was
delivered by the Superior Court on November 2, 2018, declaring that
Affinitas had complied with its obligations under the settlement
agreement.
Spark Networks SE operates online dating sites and mobile
applications. It focuses on catering professionals and highly
educated singles with serious relationship intentions in North
America and other international markets. The company operates its
dating platforms under the EliteSingles, SilverSingles, JDate,
Christian Mingle, eDarling, JSwipe, and Attractive World brands.
The company is headquartered in Berlin, Germany.
STANDARD MARKET: Abusalem Sues Over Biometric Data Retention
------------------------------------------------------------
LEEN ABUSALEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE STANDARD MARKET, LLC Defendant, Case No.
2019L000517 (18th Judicial Circuit Ct., Dupage Cty., Ill., May 9,
2019) seeks to put a stop to Defendant's unlawful collection, use,
and storage of Plaintiff's and the putative Class members'
sensitive biometric data.
To protect its citizens, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information
Privacy Act, ("BIPA"), specifically to regulate companies that
collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as
fingerprints.
Despite this law, Standard Market disregards its employees'
statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects,
stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the BIPA,
asserts the complaint. Specifically, Standard Market has violated
(and continues to violate) the BIPA because it did not: properly
inform Plaintiff and the Class members in writing of the specific
purpose and length of time for which their fingerprints were being
collected, stored, and used, as required by the BIPA; provide a
publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for
permanently destroying Plaintiff and the Class's fingerprints, as
required by the BIPA; nor receive a written release from Plaintiff
or the members of the Class to collect, capture, or otherwise
obtain fingerprints, as required by the BIPA, says the complaint.
Plaintiff is a natural person and a citizen of the State of
Illinois.
Standard Market currently, or in the past 5 years, has operated in
Naperville, Illinois and Westmont, Illinois and it operates
Bakersfield Wood Fired Grill, Standard Tacos & Margarita, The
Standard Grill, and grocery stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Fish, Esq.
Seth Matus, Esq.
Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
John Kunze, Esq.
THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
Phone: 630.355.7590
Fax: 630.778.0400
Email: admin@fishlawfirm.com
dfish@fishlawfirm.com
smatus@fishlawfirm.com
khilton@fishlawfirm.com
jkunze@fishlawfirm.com
TD AMERITRADE: Briefing on Appeal in Ford Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that briefing
on the appeal related to the case, Roderick Ford (replacing Gerald
Klein) v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al., Case No.
8:14CV396, is underway.
In 2014, five putative class action complaints were filed regarding
TD Ameritrade, Inc.'s routing of client orders and one putative
class action was filed regarding Scottrade, Inc.'s routing of
client orders. Five of the six cases were dismissed and the United
States Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, affirmed the dismissals in
those cases that were appealed.
The one remaining case is Roderick Ford (replacing Gerald Klein) v.
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14CV396 (U.S.
District Court, District of Nebraska).
In the remaining case, plaintiff alleges that, when routing client
orders to various market centers, defendants did not seek best
execution, and instead routed clients' orders to market venues that
paid TD Ameritrade, Inc. the most money for order flow. Plaintiff
alleges that defendants made misrepresentations and omissions
regarding the Company's order routing practices.
The complaint asserts claims of violations of Section 10(b) and 20
of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. The complaint seeks
damages, injunctive relief, and other relief. Plaintiff filed a
motion for class certification, which defendants opposed.
On July 12, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and a
recommendation that plaintiff's motion for class certification be
denied. Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's
findings and recommendation, which defendants opposed.
On September 14, 2018, the District Judge sustained plaintiff's
objections, rejected the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and
granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. On September
28, 2018, defendants filed a petition requesting that the U.S.
Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, grant an immediate appeal of the
District Court's class certification decision. The U.S. Court of
Appeals, 8th Circuit, granted defendants' petition on December 18,
2018. Briefing on the appeal is underway.
The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce have filed amicus curiae briefs in support
of the Company's appeal.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit and
is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the ultimate
resolution of the lawsuit, or the potential loss, if any, that may
result.
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides securities brokerage and
related technology-based financial services to retail investors and
traders, and independent registered investment advisors (RIAs) in
the United States. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides its
services primarily through the Internet, a network of retail
branches, mobile trading applications, interactive voice response,
and registered representatives through telephone. The company was
founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.
TD AMERITRADE: Judge Recommends Preliminary Approval of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the
Magistrate Judge in the case, Ciuffitelli et al. v. Deloitte &
Touche LLP, EisnerAmper LLP, Sidley Austin LLP, Tonkon Torp LLP, TD
Ameritrade, Inc., and Integrity Bank & Trust case, has issued a
recommendation that the District Judge grant the plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary approval of the Tonkon Torp settlement.
An amended putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon in Lawrence Ciuffitelli
et al. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, EisnerAmper LLP, Sidley Austin
LLP, Tonkon Torp LLP, TD Ameritrade, Inc., and Integrity Bank &
Trust, Case No. 3:16CV580, on May 19, 2016.
A second amended putative class action complaint was filed on
September 8, 2017, in which Duff & Phelps was added as a defendant.
The putative class includes all persons who purchased securities of
Aequitas Commercial Finance, LLC and its affiliates on or after
June 9, 2010.
Other groups of plaintiffs have filed non-class action lawsuits in
Oregon Circuit Court, Multnomah County, against these and other
defendants: Walter Wurster, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al.,
Case No. 16CV25920 (filed Aug. 11, 2016), Kenneth Pommier, et al.
v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 16CV36439 (filed Nov. 3,
2016), Charles Ramsdell, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case
No. 16CV40659 (filed Dec. 2, 2016), Charles Layton, et al. v.
Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 17CV42915 (filed October 2,
2017) and John Cavanagh, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case
No. 18CV09052 (filed March 7, 2018). FINRA arbitrations have also
been filed against TD Ameritrade, Inc.
The claims in these actions include allegations that the sales of
Aequitas securities were unlawful, the defendants participated and
materially aided in such sales in violation of the Oregon
securities laws, and material misstatements and omissions were
made. While the factual allegations differ in various respects
among the cases, plaintiffs' allegations include assertions that:
TD Ameritrade, Inc. customers purchased more than $140 million of
Aequitas securities; TD Ameritrade, Inc. served as custodian for
Aequitas securities; recommended and referred investors to
financial advisors as part of its advisor referral program for the
purpose of purchasing Aequitas securities; participated in
marketing the securities; recommended the securities; provided
assurances to investors about the safety of the securities; and
developed a market for the securities.
In the Ciuffitelli putative class action, plaintiffs allege that
more than 1,500 investors were owed more than $600 million on the
Aequitas securities they purchased. On August 1, 2018, the
Magistrate Judge in that case issued findings and a recommendation
that defendants' motions to dismiss the pending complaint be denied
with limited exceptions not applicable to the Company.
TD Ameritrade, Inc. and other defendants filed objections to the
Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation, which plaintiffs
opposed. On September 24, 2018, the District Judge issued an
opinion and order adopting the Magistrate Judge's findings and
recommendation. Discovery is ongoing.
In the non-class action lawsuits, approximately 200 named
plaintiffs collectively allege a total of approximately $150
million in losses plus other damages. In the Wurster and Pommier
cases, the Court, on TD Ameritrade Inc.'s motion, dismissed the
claims by those plaintiffs who were TD Ameritrade, Inc. customers,
in favor of arbitration. Twenty-nine of those plaintiffs filed
claims in a FINRA arbitration on March 13, 2019. Discovery is
ongoing.
The Court in the Wurster and Pommier cases denied TD Ameritrade's
motion to dismiss the claims by the plaintiffs who were not TD
Ameritrade customers. Plaintiffs in the Ramsdell case have filed a
second amended complaint in which TD Ameritrade, Inc. is not named
as a defendant. On September 24, 2018, plaintiffs in the Cavanagh
case dismissed their claims against TD Ameritrade, Inc.
On July 17, 2018, plaintiffs in the Ciuffitelli case filed a motion
for preliminary approval of an $18.5 million settlement with the
defendant Tonkon Torp law firm of the claims against it in all the
pending cases.
On March 19, 2019, the Magistrate Judge in the Ciuffitelli case
issued findings and a recommendation that the District Judge grant
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the Tonkon Torp
settlement.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against this litigation.
The Company is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the
ultimate resolution of this litigation, or the potential losses, if
any, that may result.
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides securities brokerage and
related technology-based financial services to retail investors and
traders, and independent registered investment advisors (RIAs) in
the United States. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides its
services primarily through the Internet, a network of retail
branches, mobile trading applications, interactive voice response,
and registered representatives through telephone. The company was
founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.
TENET HEALTHCARE: Class Cert. Bid Ruling in Maderazo Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs in
the case, Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a
Baptist Health Systems, et al., have filed a petition seeking
further appellate court review of a decision denying their motion
for class certification.
In Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist
Health Systems, et al., filed in June 2006 in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas, a purported class of
registered nurses employed by three unaffiliated San Antonio-area
hospital systems alleged those hospital systems, including the
company's Baptist Health System, and other unidentified San Antonio
regional hospitals violated Section Section 1 of the federal
Sherman Act by conspiring to depress nurses' compensation and
exchanging compensation-related information among themselves in a
manner that reduced competition and suppressed the wages paid to
such nurses.
The suit sought unspecified damages (subject to trebling under
federal law), interest, costs and attorneys' fees.
On January 23, 2019, the district court issued an opinion denying
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The plaintiffs' subsequent appeal of the district court's decision
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was denied on
March 26, 2019. On April 9, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a petition
seeking the appellate court's further review of the district
court's ruling.
Tenet Healthcare said, "If necessary, we will continue to
vigorously defend ourselves against the plaintiffs’
allegations."
Tenet Healthcare Corporation operates as a diversified healthcare
services company. The company operates in three segments: Hospital
Operations and Other, Ambulatory Care, and Conifer. Tenet
Healthcare Corporation was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in
Dallas, Texas.
TESLA INC: Appeal Filed in Suit over Model 3 Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------
Tesla Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the securities
litigation relating to the production of Model 3 Vehicles filed a
notice of appeal.
On October 10, 2017, a purported stockholder class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against Tesla, two of its current officers, and a former officer.
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of Tesla securities from May 4,
2016 to October 6, 2017.
The lawsuit claims that Tesla supposedly made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's preparedness to
produce Model 3 vehicles.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 23, 2018, and
defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 25, 2018. The court
granted defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend.
Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on September 28, 2018, and
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
February 15, 2019. The hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on
March 22, 2019, and on March 25, 2019, the Court ruled in favor of
defendants and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On April 8,
2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
The company said, "We continue to believe that the claims are
without merit and intend to defend against this lawsuit vigorously.
We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if
any, associated with this lawsuit."
On October 26, 2018, in a similar action, a purported stockholder
class action was filed in the Superior Court of California in Santa
Clara County against Tesla, Elon Musk and seven initial purchasers
in an offering of debt securities by Tesla in August 2017. The
complaint alleges misrepresentations made by Tesla regarding the
number of Model 3 vehicles Tesla expected to produce by the end of
2017 in connection with such offering, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of Tesla securities in such offering. Tesla
thereafter removed the case to federal court.
On January 22, 2019, plaintiff abandoned its effort to proceed in
state court, instead filing an amended complaint against Tesla,
Elon Musk and seven initial purchasers in the debt offering before
the same judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California who is hearing the above-referenced earlier filed
federal court case. On February 5, 2019, the Court stayed this new
case pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss the complaint in the
above earlier filed case. Now that the above-referenced earlier
filed federal court case has been dismissed, the parties are
negotiating a briefing schedule for the motion to dismiss that
defendants will be filing in this case.
Tesla said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and
intend to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. We are unable to
estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated
with this lawsuit."
Tesla Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells high-performance
electric vehicles and electric vehicle powertrain components. The
Company owns its sales and service network and sells electric
powertrain components to other automobile manufacturers. Tesla
serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Palo Alto,
California.
TESLA INC: Class Suit over Musk's Tweet Shelved
-----------------------------------------------
Tesla Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the consolidated purported stockholder
class action has been stayed while the issue of selection of lead
counsel is briefed and argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.
Between August 10, 2018 and September 6, 2018, nine purported
stockholder class actions were filed against Tesla and Elon Musk in
connection with Elon Musk's August 7, 2018 Twitter post that he was
considering taking Tesla private.
All of the suits are now pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. Although the complaints vary in
certain respects, they each purport to assert claims for violations
of federal securities laws related to Mr. Musk's statement and seek
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of Tesla's securities.
Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint on January 16, 2019
and added as defendants the members of Tesla’s board of
directors. The now-consolidated purported stockholder class action
is stayed while the issue of selection of lead counsel is briefed
and argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Tesla said, "We believe that the claims have no merit and intend to
defend against them vigorously. We are unable to estimate the
potential loss, or range of loss, associated with these claims."
Tesla Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells high-performance
electric vehicles and electric vehicle powertrain components. The
Company owns its sales and service network and sells electric
powertrain components to other automobile manufacturers. Tesla
serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Palo Alto,
California.
UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT: Morgan Sues over Robocalls
------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Universal City
Development Partners, Ltd., d/b/a Universal Orlando Resorts for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case is
captioned ANGELA MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT
PARTNERS, LTD d/b/a UNIVERSAL ORLANDO RESORTS, Defendant, Case No.
6:19-cv-00791 (M.D. Fla., April 26, 2019). Plaintiff Angela Morgan
alleges that Universal Orlando Resorts made numerous robocalls to
her cellular telephone number without her express permission.
Located in Orlando Florida, Universal City Development Partners,
Ltd. owns and operates Universal Studios Florida, a theme park with
movie-themed rides. The company also owns and operates CityWalk, a
dining, retail, and entertainment complex at Universal Orlando
Resort. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Heather H. Jones, Esq.
William “Billy” Peerce Howard, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
4030 Henderson Blvd.
Tampa, FL 33629
Telephone: (813) 500-1500, ext. 205
Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
E-mail: Heather@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
- and -
Keith Keogh, Esq.
KEOGH LAW, LTD.
55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 726-1092
Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
E-mail: Keith@Keoghlaw.com
UXIN LIMITED: Class Suits over 2018 IPO Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------
Uxin Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has been
named as defendant in six class action lawsuits in relation to its
initial public offering in June 2018. The cases filed in New York
state court have been consolidated.
The company and certain of its current and former directors have
been named as defendants in five putative securities class actions
filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York between January
22 and January 31, 2019. On February 28, 2019, the parties in the
state court actions entered into a stipulation to consolidate all
these actions before the Court.
These cases are:
Mark Lee v. Uxin Limited et al, Index No. 650427/2019 (Sup. Ct.
N.Y. Cty.);
Lei Liang v. Uxin Limited et al, Index No. 650509/2019 (Sup. Ct.
N.Y. Cty.);
Adam Franchie v. Uxin Limited et al, Index No. 650604/2019 (Sup.
Ct. N.Y. Cty.);
Raul Araujo v. Uxin Limited et al, Index No. 650613/2019 (Sup. Ct.
N.Y. Cty.);
Daniel Chiu v. Uxin Limited et al, Index No. 650633/2019 (Sup. Ct.
N.Y. Cty.).
In addition, on February 11, 2019, a sixth complaint, Machniewicz
v. Uxin Limited et al, Case No. 1:19-cv-00822 (E.D.N.Y.), was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.
All these cases were purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of alleged
misstatements and omissions in certain disclosure documents in
connection with the company's initial public offering in June 2018.
These actions remain in preliminary stages.
Uxin Limited, an investment holding company, operates an used car
e-commerce platform in China. Uxin Limited was founded in 2011 and
is headquartered in Beijing, China.
VMWARE INC: Vasquez Sues over Employment Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against VMware, Inc. for
alleged unlawful discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights
Act of 1866 as codified by 42 U.S.C. Sect. 1981, and the Private
Attorney General Act, as codified by California Labor Code Sections
2698, et seq. The case is captioned SANDY VASQUEZ, Plaintiff, vs.
VMWARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-02182-NC (N.D. Cal.,
April 23, 2019). Plaintiff alleges that the company implements a
policy and practice to refuse to hire individuals who are federally
authorized to work but are not U.S. citizens, do not have a
permanent resident card, or do not have a transferable visa.
VMware is an American technology company and provider of
virtualization and cloud computing software. VMware is
headquartered in Palo Alto, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Saenz, Esq.
Julia A. Gomez, Esq.
MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
634 S. Spring St., 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 629-2512
Facsimile: (213) 629-0266
E-mail: tsaenz@maldef.org
jgomez@maldef.org
WALDORF ASTORIA: Underpays Housekeepers, Taylor Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
SEBASTIAN TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALDORF ASTORIA MANAGEMENT LLC;
and Doe 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19SMCV00699
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 15, 2019) is an action
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide
accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.
The Plaintiff Taylor was employed by the Defendants as
housekeeper.
Waldorf Astoria Management LLC provides hotel management services.
The company was founded in 2007 and is based in Chicago, Illinois.
Waldorf Astoria Management LLC operates as a subsidiary of Hilton
Worldwide Holdings Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Ricasa, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN RICASA
15760 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 700
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 650-8077
Facsimile: (818) 301-5151
E-mail: jricasa@ricasalaw.com
- and -
Briana M. Kim, Esq.
Grace E. Pak, Esq.
BRIANA KIM, PC
249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (714) 482-6301
Facsimile: (714) 482-6302
E-mail: briana@brianakim.com
grace@brianakim.com
WEST CORP: Members Sue Over Excessive Benefits Plan Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Courtless Rampey and Bridget Cunningham, individually and as
representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on
behalf of the West Corporation Employee 401(k) Retirement Plan,
Plaintiffs, v. West Corporation and Retirement Committee of West
Corporation Employee 401(k) Retirement Plan, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00220 (S.D. Ala., May 6, 2019), seeks all equitable and/or
remedial relief including payment of reasonable fees, costs and
interest in breach of fiduciary duties.
West Corporation and the Retirement Committee of West Corporation
Employee 401(k) Retirement Plan exercise discretionary authority
and/or control over the defined contribution pension plan of the
West Corporation employees.
Plan members claim that the fees charged to Plan participants for
administrative services are greater than 90% of its comparator
fees, without regard to whether the fees are calculated as cost per
participant or percent of total assets. The fees at issue were up
to 29 times higher than the fees of comparable funds. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles J. Potts, Esq.
BRISKMAN & BINION, P.C.
Mobile, AL 36601
Tel: (251) 433-7600
Fax: (251) 433-4485
Email: cpotts@briskman-binion.com
- and -
Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
Email: lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com
- and -
Jordan Lewis, Esq.
JORDAN LEWIS, P.A.
4473 N.E. 11th Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334
Telephone No.: (954) 616-8995
Facsimile No.: (954) 206-0374
Email: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com
WICKER PARK INN: Knowles Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WICKER PARK INN INC.
The case is styled as Carlton Knowles on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WICKER PARK INN INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03247 (N.D. Ill., May 14, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Wicker Park Inn is a newly renovated, boutique Bed and
Breakfast in Chicago.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
CK Lee, Esq.
Lee Litigation Group PLLC
30 E 39th St-2nd Fl
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
Email: cklee@leelitigation.com
XUNLEI LIMITED: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Xunlei Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Xunlei Limited
Securities Litigation, No. 18-cv-467 (PAC), is pending.
Two putative shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the company company and certain current and former
officers and directors of its company: Dookeran v. Xunlei Limited,
et al. (filed on January 18, 2018, Case No. 18-cv-467 (S.D.N.Y.)),
and Peng Li v. Xunlei Limited, et al. (filed on January 24, 2018,
Case No. 18-cv-646 (S.D.N.Y.)).
Purporting to sue on behalf of all investors who purchased or
acquired Xunlei stock from October 10, 2017 to January 11, 2018,
plaintiffs allege that certain statements regarding OneCoin in the
company's press releases and on a quarterly investor call were
false and misleading because, among other things, they failed to
disclose that OneCoin was a disguised "initial coin offering" and
"initial miner offering" and constituted "unlawful financial
activity."
Plaintiffs seek to recover under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. On
April 12, 2018, the court consolidated the actions under the
caption In re Xunlei Limited Securities Litigation, No. 18-cv-467
(PAC) and appointed lead plaintiffs who filed a consolidated
amended compliant on June 4, 2018.
Xunlei said, "We filed a motion to dismiss the amended compliant on
August 3, 2018. As of October 31, 2018, the motion was fully
briefed."
Xunlei Limited, a cloud-based acceleration technology company,
operates an Internet platform for digital media content in the
People's Republic of China. Xunlei Limited was founded in 2003 and
is based in Shenzhen, the People's Republic of China.
[*] Globalstar Expects to Get $3.7MM by 2020 from Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Globalstar, Inc. recorded US$3.7 million at March 31, 2019, for the
second and final installment it expects to receive in January 2020
related to a 2018 settlement of a business economic loss claim,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.
In May 2018, the Company concluded the settlement of a business
economic loss claim in which it was an absent member in a tort
class action lawsuit. The Company is due proceeds of US$7.4
million, net of legal fees, related to this settlement. The
Company received the first installment of US$3.7 million in January
2019. The second and final installment of US$3.7 million is
expected to be received in January 2020 and is recorded in prepaid
expenses and other current assets on the Company's condensed
consolidated balance sheet at March 31, 2019.
During the second quarter of 2018, the Company recorded the present
value of the proceeds of US$6.8 million and a discount of US$0.6
million. The present value of the net proceeds of US$6.8 million
was recorded in other income on the Company's condensed
consolidated statement of operations. The discount of US$0.6
million was recorded on the Company's condensed consolidated
balance sheet and is being accreted to interest income over the
term of the receivable using the effective interest method.
Globalstar, Inc., provides Mobile Satellite Services (MMS)
including voice and data communications services globally via
satellite. The Company offers voice and data communication
services over its network of in-orbit satellites and active ground
stations (or gateways).
*********
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 2019. 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 ***