/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/191010.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, October 10, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 203 Headlines 3M CO: Final Judgment in Bhatia Defective Dental Crown Suit Entered ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES: Court Certifies Class in Foster ERISA Suit AGRIBANK FCB: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Diverse Suit ALLERGAN, INC: A.B. et al. Sue over Recalled Breast Implants ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Bid to Dismiss Second Amended MSPA Suit Denied AMERICAN BOARD: Court Dismisses Kenney's Antitrust Suit AMERICAN EAGLE: Mullen Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania AMERICAN GUARD: Wisner Hits Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks AMERICAN INT'L: Faces D'Artiste Suit in California AMY SCHERBER INC: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Wright Suit Says APPLIED UNDERWRITER: Obtains Summary Judgment in Pet Food Suit ARGOS INN: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ARS NATIONAL: Chen Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ASTRAZENECA: Monopolized Supply of Seroquel XR, Pipe Trades Asserts AWH PARTNERS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BMW FINANCIAL: $2.4M Suit Settlement Over Canceled Leases Approved CANADA GOOSE: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of Nov. 4 Deadline CAREERBUILDER LLC: Martin Suit Asserts Breach of Fiduciary Duty CAVALRY SPV: Oh Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey CLEAR VIEW: Former Ebony Employees File Class Action Lawsuit COMMUNITY BANK: Answer to Kelly's Overdraft Fees Suit Due Oct. 15 COOKWARE COMPANY: Johnson // Becker Files Class Action CORINDUS VASCULAR: Rauner Files Suit Over Siemens Merger Deal DASH LUBE: Moreno Moves to Certify Class of Service Technicians DEFENDERS INC: Illegally Sent Misleading Spam E-Mails, Says Suit DESIGNER BRANDS: Dargoltz Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads DOORDASH INC: Faces Class Suit After Using Drivers' Tips ELECTROCORE INC: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit ELECTROCORE INC: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EXTENDED STAY: Reservation System not ADA-Compliant, Says Mullen FACEBOOK INC: Investor Plaintiffs Have Until Oct. 26 to Refile Case FARMERS INSURANCE: Bid to Decertify Class in Deluca FLSA Suit Nixed FCA US: Garcia Files Suit Over Illegal Marketing Calls FORD MOTOR: O'Connor Sues over Defective 10R80 Transmissions GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Cadillac Infotainment Screens GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Calderon Labor Suit Underway GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Zhang Investor Law Files Class Action Suit HASBROUCK HOUSE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JAMBA JUICE: Sharward Suit Pending in California Superior Court JUDICIAL CORRECTION: Court Denies Class Certification in Kay Suit JUUL LABS: Swearingen Suit Underway in N.D. Calif. KANSAS DEPT. FOR CHILDREN: More Children Added to Class Suit LA TOURELLE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LOVING CARE NURSING: Does not Properly Pay Nurses, Penn Suit Says MARC JACOBS: Desalvo Drops ADA Class Suit in Calif. MDL 2804: Court Certifies Negotiation Class in Opiate Suit MEREDITH CORPORATION: Nov. 5 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline MIRROR LAKE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MYRIAD GENETICS: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of Oct. 18 Deadline NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Zhang Investor Files Class Action NETAPP INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Oct. 15 Plaintiff Deadline NEW BAY ROSE: Palaguachi Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages NINTENDO CO: Amended Suit Says Joy-Cons Have Drift Problem OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Robbins Geller Notes of Nov. 16 Deadline OVIEDO BEAUTIFUL: Sarno Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages PATIENT BUILDERS: Katz Suit Underway in California Northern Dist. PAYAM INC: Denied Workers Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay, Says Suit PERDUE FARMS: Earnest Suit Asserts Sherman Act Breach PFFA ACQUISITION: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York PINNACLE FOOD: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Korte Suit PROPETRO HOLDING: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Nov. 15 Deadline PROPETRO HOLDING: Nov. 15 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline PURDUE PHARMA: NL Joins British Columbia's Opioid Suit RICHEMONT NA: Zhang Sues Over Denied OT Pay, Breaks, Reimbursements SEIU PENNSYLVANIA: Court Dismisses LaSpina 2nd Amended Suit SHAFER PROJECT: Lewis Seeks Overtime Pay for Coating Inspectors SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Pawar Law Files Class Action Lawsuit SUNDIAL GROWERS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Lawsuit SUNDIAL GROWERS: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit SUNDIAL GROWERS: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit SURFACE ONCOLOGY: Ang Says IPO Registration Statement Misleading TALAMO FOOD: Rivera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages TAQUERIAS EL FAROLITO: Romero's Overtime Suit Underway TEESPRING INC: Traynor Suit Underway in New York Southern District TELEBRANDS CORP: Illegally Charged Monthly Fees, Rosenbloom Claims TENCENT MUSIC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action TENCENT MUSIC: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit UNITED STATES: Oct. 18 Conference on 2016 Election-Related Appeal VALARIS PLC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Oct. 21 Deadline VIEWRAY INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Nov. 12 Deadline VIMEO INC: Faces Class Action for Violations of Biometric Law WALMART INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Fortney Says ********* 3M CO: Final Judgment in Bhatia Defective Dental Crown Suit Entered ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Donovan W. Frank of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has entered final judgment in the case, Vikram Bhatia, D.D.S., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 3M Company, Defendant, Civil No. 16-1304 (DWF/DTS) (D. Minn.). The Parties to the class action entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated as of March 25, 2019. On April 10, 2019, the Court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement. The notice of the Settlement was provided to the Class Members in accordance with the Court's Preliminary Approval Order. On Sept. 4, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., Judge Frank held the Fairness Hearing. Having considered the papers filed and proceedings held in connection with the Settlement, he finds that the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class. Accordingly, he authorized and directed the implementation of all terms and provisions of the Stipulation. The Judge affirmed the appointment of the Class Representatives and of the Class Counsel. Judgment is entered dismissing the Action with prejudice, on the merits, and without taxation of costs in favor of or against any Party. The Plan of Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund as described in the Notice to Class Members is approved, subject to modification by further order of the Court, which may, at its discretion, be entered without further notice to the Class. The Judge awarded the Class Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of $10,725,000, and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses in the amount of $120,009.54. Class Representatives Angela Ferrari, D.D.S. and Dominick Lembo, D.M.D. are granted service awards of $25,000 each, and the remaining 16 Class Representatives are granted service awards of $10,000 each. Such amounts will be paid from out of the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation. He directed the Claims Administrator to mail the Supplemental Notice and the Supplemental Claim Form to the Class Members, in the same manner as the Notice, during the time period between June 15, 2020 and June 30, 2020. There being no just reason for delay, the Clerk of Court is directed to enter final judgment forthwith pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 11, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/mKqdXi from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda M. Williams -- awilliams@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel E. Gustafson -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel C. Hedlund -- dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, David A. Goodwin -- dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Eric S. Taubel -- etaubel@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Korey A. Nelson -- knelson@burnscharest.com -- Burns Charest LLP, pro hac vice, Warren T. Burns -- wburns@burnscharest.com -- Burns Charest LLP, pro hac vice & William B. Thompson -- wthompson@burnscharest.com -- Burns Charest LLP, pro hac vice. Plaintiffs' Executive Committee Chairperson, Plaintiff, represented by James J. Pizzirusso -- jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice. Plaintiff's Executive Committee, Plaintiff, represented by Brian C. Gudmundson -- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Charles D. Gabriel -- cdgabriel@cpblawgroup.com -- Chalmers Adams, LLC, pro hac vice, Edward Anthony Wallace, Wexler Wallace LLP, pro hac vice, James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Jordan M. Lewis, Jordan Lewis, P.A., Joseph G. Sauder -- jgs@mccunewright.com -- Sauder Schelkopf LLC, Paul J. Scarlato -- scarlato@lawgsp.com -- Goldman Scarlato & Penny, P.C., pro hac vice, William M. Audet, Audet & Partners, LLP, pro hac vice & Yvonne M. Flaherty, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP. Vikram Bhatia, D.D.S., Jeffrey Chen, D.D.S., Bruce Sherrill, D.D.S., Brookhaven Dental Associates, P.C. & Johns Creek Dental Associates, P.C., Plaintiffs, represented by Alan L. Rosca -- arosca@prwlegal.com -- Rosca Law, pro hac vice, Amanda M. Williams, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Bradley A. Winters -- bwinters@scwstl.com -- The Winters Law Group, LLC, pro hac vice, Bryan L. Bleichner -- bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com -- Chestnut Cambronne PA, Bryce Daniel Riddle , Zimmerman Reed, LLP, Charles D. Gabriel -- cdgabriel@cpblawgroup.com -- Chalmers Adams, LLC, pro hac vice, Daniel H. Charest, Burns Charest LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel C. Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, David S. Corwin, Corwin Law Group, pro hac vice, David A. Goodwin, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Edward Anthony Wallace , Wexler Wallace LLP, pro hac vice, Eric S. Taubel, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. --g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com -- Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. Bores -- jbores@chestnutcambronne.com -- Chestnut Cambronne, PA, John R. Parker, Jr. -- jparker@cutterlaw.com -- Cutter Law, P.C., pro hac vice, Joseph G. Sauder, Sauder Schelkopf LLC, pro hac vice, Katie Rose Beran, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Katrina Carroll -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC, pro hac vice, Korey A. Nelson, Burns Charest LLP, pro hac vice, Kyle Alan Shamberg -- kshamberg@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, Ling Y. Kuang, Audet & Partners, LLP, pro hac vice, Marc H. Edelson -- medelson@edelson-law.com -- Edelson & Associates, LLC, pro hac vice, Michael K. Yarnoff -- myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com -- The Kehoe Law Firm, Paul J. Scarlato, Goldman Scarlato & Penny, P.C., pro hac vice, Roberta A. Yard -- r.yard@rwblawfirm.com -- Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Warren T. Burns, Burns Charest LLP, pro hac vice, William M. Audet , Audet & Partners, LLP, pro hac vice & William B. Thompson, Burns Charest LLP, pro hac vice. Justin Ebersole, D.D.S., Angela Ferrari, D.D.S., Mike Henrickson, D.D.S. & Dr. Myron Henrickson, Plaintiffs, represented by Alan L. Rosca, Rosca Law, pro hac vice, Amanda M. Williams, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Bradley A. Winters, The Winters Law Group, LLC, pro hac vice, Bryan L. Bleichner, Chestnut Cambronne PA, Bryce Daniel Riddle, Zimmerman Reed, LLP, Charles D. Gabriel, Chalmers Adams, LLC, pro hac vice, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel C. Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, David S. Corwin, Corwin Law Group, pro hac vice, David A. Goodwin, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Edward Anthony Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace LLP, pro hac vice, Eric S. Taubel, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. Bores, Chestnut Cambronne, PA, John R. Parker, Jr., Cutter Law, P.C., pro hac vice, Joseph G. Sauder, Sauder Schelkopf LLC, pro hac vice, Katie Rose Beran, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Katrina Carroll, Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC, pro hac vice, Kyle Alan Shamberg, Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, Marc H. Edelson, Edelson & Associates, LLC, pro hac vice, Michael K. Yarnoff, The Kehoe Law Firm, Paul J. Scarlato, Goldman Scarlato & Penny, P.C., pro hac vice & Roberta A. Yard, Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield. 3M Company, Defendant, represented by Laura Reilly -- laura.reilly@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels, Matthew B. Kilby -- matthew.kilby@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Tyler A. Young -- tyler.young@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Wendy J. Wildung -- wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES: Court Certifies Class in Foster ERISA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CAROL FOSTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02723-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs Foster and Theo Foreman bring a class action suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Adams and Associates Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP"). The Plaintiffs allege that Adams and Associates, Roy A. Adams, Leslie G. Adams, Daniel B. Norem, Joy Curry Norem, and The Daniel Norem Revocable Trust Dated January 9, 2002, breached their fiduciary duty to them, participated in prohibited transactions, and failed to make required disclosures. Adams and Associates purports to be one of the largest private sector entities involved in the federal Job Corps program. The Plaintiffs are participants in the Adams and Associates ESOP from October 2012 or any time thereafter who vested under the Plan terms. The Plaintiffs' claims arise out of a transaction in October 2012 in which Defendants Roy A. Adams, Leslie G. Adams, and The Trust sold 100% of the stock of Adams and Associates to the Adams ESOP as well as alleged subsequent breaches by the Adams ESOP fiduciaries. The Plaintiffs allege that the transaction was not in the best interests of the ESOP participants, that it was implemented by a Trustee who was a felon and was later incarcerated for stealing from other ESOPs and caused the ESOP to pay in excess of fair market value. The Director Defendants knew and failed to disclose that the ESOP Trustee, Alan Weissman, was a felon. As a result of the Defendants' fiduciary breaches, the Plaintiffs and the Class have not received all of the hard-earned retirement benefits or the loyal and prudent management of the ESOP to which they are entitled. Plaintiff Foster was employed as a Security Advisor by Adams and Associates from February 2015 through March 2018 at the Treasure Island Job Corps Center in San Francisco, California. Plaintiff Foreman is a current employee of Adams and Associates, and has worked at the Treasure Island Job Corps Center in San Francisco as a Center Shift Manager since June 2009. The Plaintiffs filed the action alleging that the Defendants collectively committed multiple ERISA violations including (1) prohibited transactions by Roy Adams, Leslie Adams, Daniel Norem, the Norem Trust, and Weissman under 29 U.S.C. Section 1106(a); (2) prohibited transactions by Roy Adams, Leslie Adams, Daniel Norem, and the Norem Trust ("Selling Shareholder Defendants") under 29 U.S.C. Sections 1106(a)-(b); (3) breach of fiduciary duty by Weissman under 29 U.S.C. Sections 1104(a)(1)(A)-(B); (4) breach of fiduciary duty by Roy Adams, Leslie Adams and Daniel Norem under 29 U.S.C. Sections 1104(a)(1)(A)-(B), (D); (5) failure to make required disclosures by Adams and Associates under 29 U.S.C. Sections 1022, 1024(b)(1), 1104(a)(1)(A)-(B); and (6) that Roy Adams, Leslie Adams and Daniel Norem created a prohibited indemnification agreement for Weissman under 29 U.S.C. Section 1110(a). The Plaintiffs seek to restore losses from the ESOP, disgorge the Defendants' profits from the ESOP, and other equitable relief. They also request a long list of additional remedies including: (1) declaratory relief regarding each of the claims; (2) injunctive relief; (3) orders requiring disclosures and pertinent information; (4) monetary damages relating to ESOP losses; (5) equitable relief, including accountings; (6) attorney fees and costs; and (7) any further relief the Court finds appropriate. The Court denied the motion to dismiss of Adams and Associates, Roy A. Adams, Leslie G. Adams, and Daniel B. Norem for failure to state a claim and as barred by the statute of limitations. The Defendants thereafter answered the complaint. The now pending motion for class certification followed. The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all participants in the Adams and Associates ESOP from Oct. 25, 2012 or any time thereafter, who vested under the terms of the ESOP, along with the participants' beneficiaries. The Court may certify a class only where "(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." The Defendants do not dispute that the numerosity, commonality, and typicality requirements are satisfied. The Plaintiffs contend that certification is proper under any of the three prongs of Rule 23(b), but only seek certification under 23(b)(3) should the Court conclude that certification not proper under 23(b)(1) or 23(b)(2). The Defendants do not oppose certification under any prong of Rule 23(b). Magistrate Judge Corley finds that the allegations concern a single ESOP transaction and the Defendants' actions. Determination regarding the legality of that transaction and the Defendants' actions will affect the rights of all the other ESOP participants. Thus, certification under 23(b)(1)(B) is appropriate. Rule 23(b)(2) applies only when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class. It does not authorize class certification when each individual class member would be entitled to a different injunction or declaratory judgment against the defendant. These requirements are unquestionably satisfied when members of a putative class seek uniform injunctive or declaratory relief from policies or practices that are generally applicable to the class as a whole. The Magistrate finds that the Plaintiffs seek the same relief for all members of the class based on the Defendants' actions and inactions towards the class as a whole such that certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is also proper. Given her conclusion that certification is proper under Rule 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2), the Magistrate need not consider the Plaintiffs' alternative theory that certification is proper under Rule 23(b)(3). For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Corley granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. She certified a class of all participants in the Adams and Associates ESOP from Oct. 25, 2012 or any time thereafter who vested under the terms of the ESOP and their beneficiaries. The class definition excludes the Defendants and their immediate family, any fiduciary of the ESOP, the officers and directors of Adams and Associates, Inc. or of any entity in which a Defendant has a controlling interest, and legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons. Plaintiffs Carol Foster and Theo Foreman are appointed as the Class Representatives. Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP and Block & Leviton LLP are appointed as the Co-Lead Counsel for the Class pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 11, 2019 Amended Order is available at https://is.gd/cXMNFu from Leagle.com. Carol Foster, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Theo Foreman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel Mark Feinberg -- dan@feinbergjackson.com -- Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP, R. Joseph Barton -- joe@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP & Vincent Cheng -- vincent@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP. Adams and Associates, Inc., Roy A. Adams, Leslie G. Adams, Daniel B. Norem, Joy Curry Norem & The Daniel Norem Revocable Trust Dated January 9, 2002, Defendants, represented by Dominique N. Thomas, Benjamin Law Group, PC, 1290 B St Ste 314, Hayward, CA 94541, Kartikey Anil Pradhan -- kpradhan@kdvlaw.com -- Kaufman Dolovich Volukh, Kate Elizabeth Collins, Kaufman Dolowich Voluck & Tad A. Devlin, Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, 600 Massie Rd, 209 Jaobc, Charlottesvle, VA 22903-1750. AGRIBANK FCB: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Diverse Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DIVERSE PARTNERS, LP, and TROY BANK & TRUST COMPANY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AGRIBANK, FCB, Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-9526 (VEC) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Plaintiffs' motions to certify a Plaintiff class; to appoint the Plaintiffs as the co-representatives of the class; and to appoint the Plaintiffs' counsel as the class counsel. In the putative class action, the Plaintiffs have sued the Defendant for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant wrongfully redeemed $500 million in subordinate notes before their stated maturity date, thereby causing them -- allegedly beneficial owners of the Notes -- to lose substantial interest payments. The Plaintiffs have moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3) to certify a Plaintiff class of all beneficial owners of the Notes when Defendant redeemed them; to appoint the Plaintiffs as the co-representatives of the class; and to appoint their counsel as the class counsel. Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3), the Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all persons who beneficially owned Notes when the Redemption occurred, excluding (a) Defendant Agribank, (b) any of Agribank's subsidiaries, (c) current or former officers of Agribank or any of its subsidiaries, and those officers' immediate families, (d) any entity in which Agribank has or had a controlling interest, and (e) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of any of these excluded parties. The case presents two common questions susceptible to generalized, class-wide proof: whether the Defendant breached the Global Security by redeeming the Notes on July 15, 2016, rather than on their stated maturity date of July 15, 2019; and whether, by the same conduct, it breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Because there is no dispute that all of the Notes were governed by a single Global Security, and because the Defendant does not dispute that it redeemed the Notes on July 15, 2016, the answers to these two questions turn on the Court's interpretation of the Global Security. That interpretation would resolve both questions for the entire putative class. These two common questions having been identified, the predominance inquiry then turns to whether adjudicating the case requires resolving any individual questions and, if so, whether those individual questions are "more substantial" than the common ones. The Defendant purports to identify a number of individual questions, but two of its candidates suffice to defeat certification: (1) the individualized fact-finding necessary to identify the putative class' members, and (2) the individualized inquiry whether any putative class member's acquisition of less than $250,000 in Notes was a material breach of the Global Security and thus excused the Defendant's obligations under the Global Security to such class member. Each of these individualized question independently defeats predominance. Regarding the first of these issues, Judge Caproni holds that it is well established that individual questions regarding membership in a putative class may predominate over common questions and therefore preclude class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). Determining class membership in this case will be a fact-intensive, individualized inquiry that overwhelms common questions. The Plaintiffs' proposed class consists of all beneficial owners of the Notes when Defendant redeemed them. But even after extensive fact discovery, they themselves have been unable to identify those beneficial owners, and they have failed to offer a source of generalized proof that can accomplish the task reliably. The Plaintiffs are not obligated at this stage to identify each and every member of the putative class, but the shakiness of the individualized evidence of class membership that they have submitted and their failure to propose a method for reliably determining class membership on an administratively feasible (if not class-wide) basis persuade the Judge that individualized questions regarding class membership would "overshadow" any common issues if a class were certified. Putting aside concerns over proving class membership, there is a second individualized question that threatens to predominate over common ones: whether any purported class members materially breached the Global Security by acquiring less than $250,000 in Notes and thereby excused the Defendant's alleged breach of the Global Security with respect to those purported class members. The Judge finds that resolving whether a purported class member's acquisition of Notes below the $250,000 minimum defeats liability as to that class member is likely to be an individualized question that predominates over common ones. At this stage, the Judge is not persuaded that the Plaintiffs are correct when they assert that the Defendant's material-breach defense will be susceptible to clean, class-wide resolution. The Plaintiffs cite no authority for and barely explain their contention that the Global Security's prohibition on disposing of the Notes in amounts less than $250,000 "applies to the transferor, not the transferee," and thus, as a matter of law, does not apply to any purported class member. The materiality inquiry will, therefore, be fact-sensitive, and given how widely the monetary value of purported class members' interests in the Notes apparently varied, the Court is not persuaded that this inquiry will not overwhelm common questions. In sum, because Judge Caproni does not find that common questions predominate, as Rule 23(b)(3) requires, she denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. And although she has discretion to modify the definition of the proposed class, she declines to do so. Given the substantial gaps in the evidence of class membership that the Plaintiffs have adduced so far, along with their failure to offer an administrable and reliable means of filling those gaps, the Judge concludes that there is no definable class for which individualized questions of class membership would not predominate. For the same reason, her denial of class certification is with prejudice. Finally, because the Judge denied class certification with prejudice, she also denied the Plaintiffs' motions to be appointed the co-class representatives and to appoint their counsel as the class counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 11, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/mnWJOL from Leagle.com. Diverse Partners, LP, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gordon Z. Novod -- gnovod@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Caitlin M. Moyna -- cmoyna@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. & Jonathan David Park -- jpark@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. Troy Bank & Trust Company, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gordon Z. Novod, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. Agribank, FCB, Defendant, represented by Anthony L. Paccione, Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, Brian Lee Muldrew -- brian.muldrew@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, Jason A. Nagi, Polsinelli PC, Mark Thomas Ciani , Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP & Jason Christopher Vigna -- jason.vigson@kettenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP. ALLERGAN, INC: A.B. et al. Sue over Recalled Breast Implants ------------------------------------------------------------ A.B. and C.D., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALLERGAN, INC. f/k/a INAMED CORPORATION, ALLERGAN USA, INC., and ALLERGAN plc., the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01651 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 27, 2019), seeks relief under the Unfair Competition Law as a result of Plaintiff's exposure to recalled BIOCELL products. Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders. Allergan's BIOCELL line of implants are a type of textured breast implants and tissue expanders that were first introduced internationally in the early 1990s and in the United States beginning in 2006. The BIOCELL textured implants were originally developed in the 1980s and early 1990s by Santa Barbara-based McGhan Medical Corporation, which later became Inamed Corporation. In 2006, Allergan acquired Inamed and its Santa Barbara facilities became the new national research and development center for Allergan's "medical aesthetics" division, which included breast implants. In 2011, the Food and Drug Administration identified a potential link between textured breast implants and a rare form of lymphoma called breast-implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma, or BIA-ALCL. Following a request from the FDA, on July 24, 2019, Allergan announced it was issuing a worldwide recall of all BIOCELL textured breast implants and tissue expanders. The FDA made its request after receiving reports suggesting that BIOCELL implants and expanders were associated with hundreds of cases of BIA-ALCL around the world. In its notice to the public, the FDA reported receiving 573 cases of BIA-ALCL worldwide, including 33 deaths. The FDA further noted that it had seen "significant increase in known cases of BIA-ALCL since the agency's last update earlier this year -- an increase of 116 new unique cases and 24 deaths." Of the 573 known cases of BIA-ALCL, 481 (or about 84%) were attributed to Allergan products, and of the 33 reported deaths, "12 of the 13 patients for which the manufacturer of the implant is known are confirmed to have an Allergan breast implant." According to the FDA, the risk of BIA-ALCL is six times higher with Allergan's textured implants than textured implants from other manufacturers. BIA-ALCL is not breast cancer but rather a type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a cancer of the immune system. BIA-ALCL typically occurs in the scar tissue surrounding the implant. Left untreated, it will spread to surrounding tissue such as lymph nodes near the breast, and may be fatal. BIA-ALCL is typically treated with surgery meant to remove the implant and surrounding scar tissue although some patients will require chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or both. The main symptoms of BIA-ALCL are persistent swelling or enlargement of a patient's breast or surrounding tissue that develops a year or more after surgery (swelling is common immediately after surgery), lumps in the breast or armpit, pain, rash or redness, hardening of the breast, or changes in the shape or size of the breast. After Allergan's recall, a principal FDA deputy commissioner stated that: "Based on new data, our team concluded that action is necessary at this time to protect the public health" and that "once the evidence indicated that a specific manufacturer's product appeared to be directly linked to significant patient harm, including death, the FDA took action." The products subject to recall (recalled BIOCELL product) include Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants (formerly called McGhan RTV Saline-Filled Mammary Implants), Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants (formerly called Inamed Silicone-Filled Breast Implants), Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone-Filled Breast Implants, and Allergan tissue expanders for the breast implants that have BIOCELL texturing. In a July 30, 2019 letter to "Allergan Plastic Surgery Customers", Allergan's Senior Vice President, U.S. Medical Aesthetics, Carrie Strom stated that Allergan is creating a "Replacement Warranty" for patients "currently implanted" with BIOCELL textured implants that will provide smooth device replacements. The letter explained that the warranty program will run until July 24, 2021. The letter also said that "Allergan will not be providing surgical fee assistance" to any patients. On August 9, 2019, Allergan sent a letter informing patients, including Plaintiffs, that the recall of the BIOCELL products was due to a "higher occurrence of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) in patients who have, or have had, Allergan BIOCELL textured breast implants." Allergan's "recall" and "Replacement Warranty" therefore have a glaring shortcoming -- while it has agreed to provide smooth breast implants to replace the problematic textured breast implants, Allergan has declined to cover the surgical fees patients must incur to remove the recalled BIOCELL products. As a result of Allergan's conduct, including its refusal to pay for the removal of the recalled BIOCELL products, as well as the substantially increased risk of BIA-ALCL, Plaintiffs will be forced to expend substantial sums, such as for surgery to remove their implants, medical monitoring, and other medical expenses.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiffs are: Christina C. Sharp, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. Trevor T. Tan, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com apolk@girardsharp.com ttan@girardsharp.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Bid to Dismiss Second Amended MSPA Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-01340 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Andrea R. Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the Defendant's (i) motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), and (ii) its motion to dismiss or strike the class allegations contained in the SAC. Plaintiff MSPA Claims 1 has filed the putative class action against Defendant Allstate, claiming to be the assignee of legal claims held by numerous unidentified Medicare Advantage Organizations ("MAOs"). The Plaintiff seeks double recovery under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Medicare Act ("MSPA") for reimbursement of medical expenses that the various MAOs paid on Allstate's behalf. According to the Plaintiff, Allstate agreed to serve as the primary insurer for certain enrollees in its no-fault automobile insurance policies. After the enrollees were involved in automobile accidents that caused them to incur expenses for medical treatment, the MAOs paid the enrollees' expenses instead of Allstate. The MAOs thus had the right under the MSPA provisions to institute private actions against Allstate for reimbursement and double damages. The Plaintiff claims to have obtained the MAOs' rights through a series of assignments and now seeks to enforce those rights against Allstate. It also asserts a claim for breach of contract via subrogation of the enrollees' contractual rights, alleging that Allstate breached its no-fault automobile insurance contracts with the enrollees by failing to pay their medical expenses. The Court previously dismissed the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for failure to plead facts showing that it is indeed the assignee of the rights at issue. The Plaintiff then filed a SAC. Now before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss the SAC, as well as its motion to dismiss or strike the class allegations contained in the SAC. First, Judge Wood declines to dismiss Count I for lack of standing. She holds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that it holds valid assignments regarding both the first exemplar ("F.A.") and second exemplar ("N.M.") claims. As to the F.A. Claim, the Judge finds that the agreement between Interamerican Medical Center Group, LLC ("IMC") and MSP Recovery clearly contemplates an assignment. The agreement provides that the parties agree that any rights conferred to IMC by Medicare Advantage plans either by statute, contract, and/or any other reason whatsoever will be administered by MSP Recovery. The Judge reaches the same conclusion as to the N.M. Claim. The agreement between Florida Health Care Plus ("FHCP") and Recovery Systems, Inc. provides that FHCP appoints, directs and otherwise assigns all of its rights as it pertains to the rights pursuant to any plan, State or Federal statute whatsoever directly and/or indirectly for any its members and/or plan participants. The parties agree that any rights conferred to FHCP by Medicare Advantage plans either by statute, contract and/or any other reason whatsoever will be administered by La Ley Recovery. Next, the Judge holds that the factual allegations are adequate for Allstate to understand that the Plaintiff's claims are based on Allstate's role as the primary payer of a claim covered by Medicare. The Plaintiff has alleged that, in both F.A. and N.M.'s situations, the medical providers issued bills for payment of covered medical expenses to the MAOs, which then made conditional payments in Allstate's stead but did not receive any reimbursements. It has also alleged that in both situations, Allstate was aware of the enrollee's accident and resulting medical bills. Based on these allegations, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has adequately pleaded Count I and denies Allstate's motion to dismiss. In Count II, the Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of contract based on Allstate's alleged failure to fulfill its contractual obligations to enrollees such as F.A. and N.M. pursuant to their no-fault insurance policies. It accordingly seeks to hold Allstate liable for breaching the no-fault insurance agreements held by enrollees such as F.A. and N.M. The Judge holds that Section 411.24(e) confers upon MAOs a "direct right of action to recover from any primary payer." And Section 422.108(f) provides that MAOs may exercise the same rights to recover from a primary plan, entity, or individual that the Secretary exercises under the MSP regulations. Therefore, based on the valid assignment of rights from the MAOs to the Plaintiff, it naturally follows that the Plaintiff may assert the same right of subrogation as the MAOs. In a separate motion, Allstate alternately moves to dismiss or strike the Plaintiff's class allegations. The Plaintiff defines its putative class as follows: All Medicare Advantage Organizations, First Tier Entities, Downstream Entities or their assignees (MA Plan), that provide benefits under Medicare Part C in the United States of America and its territories and that made payments for a Medicare beneficiary's medical expenses, where Allstate: (1) is the primary payer by virtue of having a contractual obligation to pay for the items and services that are required to be covered by the policy of insurance of the same Medicare Beneficiaries that are also covered by an MA plan; and (2) failed to pay for the items and services or otherwise failed to reimburse the MA Plan or its assignees for the medical items and services related to the claims on behalf of the Medicare Beneficiaries. The Judge holds that at this stage of the litigation, she is not persuaded based on the allegations in the SAC alone that class certification is inappropriate. Any further determination of whether the Plaintiff can establish the basis for class certification is premature. For now, she denies Allstate's alternative motion to dismiss or strike the Plaintiff's class allegations. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wood denied both Allstate's (i) motion to dismiss the SAC and (ii) its alternative motion to dismiss or strike the class action allegations. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 11, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/YY9Ce9 from Leagle.com. MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher L. Coffin -- ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., R. Brent Wisner -- rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com -- Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, P.c., pro hac vice, Charles Edward Whorton, Rivero Mestre LLP, pro hac vice, Courtney Lynn Stidham -- cstidham@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, pro hac vice, David M. Hundley -- dhundley@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, Nicholas R. Rockforte, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., pro hac vice, Pedram Esfandiary -- pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com -- Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, P.c., Shannon Alicia Shelton, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, pro hac vice & Tracy Lynn Turner, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, Llp. Allstate Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Steven M. Levy -- steven.levy@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Jeffrey P. Lennard -- jeffrey.lennard@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Kristine Marie Schanbacher -- kristine.schanbacher@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Mark L. Hanover -- mark.hanover@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP & Richard Lee Fenton -- richard.fenton@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP. AMERICAN BOARD: Court Dismisses Kenney's Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert F. Kelley, Sr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint captioned GERARD KENNEY, ALEXA JOSHUA, GLEN DELA CRUZ MANALO, and KATHERINE MURRAY LEISURE, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN BOARD OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-5260, (E.D. Pa.). The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) offers its own certification for medical practitioners. Approximately 80% of internists, and almost all practicing internists, purchase initial ABIM certifications. To obtain certification, a physician must pass an ABIM-administered examination. In 2006, ABIM imposed changes to Maintenance of Certification products (MOC). Internists were now also required to accumulate 100 "MOC points" every ten years by completing medical knowledge and practice performance processes, which resulted in substantial additional MOC fees for ABIM. Plaintiffs Gerard Kenney, Alexa Joshua, Glen Dela Cruz Manalo and Katherine Murray Leisure brought the action against ABIM alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and a claim of unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs allege that ABIM allegedly created and maintained unlawful monopoly power for MOC by requiring internists to purchase MOC or lose their ABIM certification. ABIM moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On review, the Court is unconvinced by Plaintiffs' arguments that ABIM's initial certification and MOC programs are distinct products. Plaintiffs' failure to establish two products means there can be no unlawful tying arrangement and we need not continue our analysis, the Court states. The Court also opined that the Plaintiffs were unable to establish any anticompetitive conduct to support a monopolization claim under the Sherman Act, and the Plaintiffs failed to assert a proper RICO claim. As to the Claim for Unjust Enrichment, the Court states that its analysis is again constrained by Plaintiffs' misunderstanding of the product they purchased. Clearly, the first two elements of unjust enrichment are met for Plaintiffs that purchased MOC. However, the third element is not met because it is not inequitable for ABIM to keep the benefit since it did not "force" Plaintiffs to purchase MOC, the Court cites. Plaintiffs were, of course, free to decide to no longer be certified by ABIM and to, therefore, not purchase MOC. In fact, it would be inequitable for Plaintiffs to demand ABIM continue to certify them without proving they are still able to meet ABIM standards and without paying ABIM for the MOC program, the Court adds. Accordingly, Judge Kelley ordered that: -- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint is granted; -- Plaintiffs' claims of illegal monopolization and monopoly maintenance under Section 2 of the Sherman Act in Count II and Section 1962(c) violations of the RICO Act in Count III are dismissed without prejudice; and -- Plaintiffs' claims of unlawful tying under Section 1 of the Sherman Act in Count I and unjust enrichment in Count IV are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs were given fourteen days to file a Second Amended Complaint. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5wt7npc from Leagle.com GERARD KENNEY, ALEXA JOSHUA, GLEN DELA CRUZ MANALO & KATHERINE MURRAY LEISURE, Plaintiffs, represented by ALAN F. CURLEY - acurley@robinsoncurley.com - ROBINSON CURLEY P.C., C. PHILIP CURLEY - pcurley@robinsoncurley.com - ROBINSON CURLEY P.C., CYNTHIA H. HYNDMAN - chyndman@robinsoncurley.com - ROBINSON CURLEY P.C., KATRINA CARROLL - kcarroll@litedepalma.com - LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC, MINDEE J. REUBEN - mreuben@litedepalma.com - LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC & SAMUEL G. ROYKO , ROBINSON CURLEY P.C. AMERICAN BOARD OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, Defendant, represented by JASON A. LECKERMAN -leckermanj@ballardspahr.com - BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LESLIE E. JOHN , BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL LLP, ELIZABETH P. WEISSERT , BALLARD SPAHR LLP & MANSI SHAH , BALLARD SPAHR. AMERICAN EAGLE: Mullen Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS, INC. The case is styled as BARTLEY M. MULLEN, JR. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS, INC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01278-MPK (W.D. Pa., Oct. 7, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., now known as simply American Eagle, is an American lifestyle clothing and accessories retailer, headquartered in the Southside Works Neighborhood of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Carlson Lynch, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com AMERICAN GUARD: Wisner Hits Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks ------------------------------------------------------- Ennis Ludell Wisner, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. American Guard Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19STCV32393 (Cal. Super., September 12, 2019), seeks redress for Defendant's failure to provide meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages, overtime, complete and accurate wage/leave statements, waiting time penalties for unpaid wages due upon termination under the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, including declaratory relief, damages, penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Defendant allegedly rounded off actual hours worked thus failing to compensate Plaintiffs for the additional hours, and time spent attending pre-shift and post-shift meetings. Defendant also required Wisner to work off the clock to clean and maintain their uniforms as a condition of employment. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Darren M. Cohen, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Tel: (818) 990-8300 Fax: (818) 990-2903 Email: dcohen@kingsleykingsley.com AMERICAN INT'L: Faces D'Artiste Suit in California -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against insurers American International Group and Lexington Insurance Company remains pending. The case is, MAISON D'ARTISTE, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.; LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV26391 (Cal. Super., July 29, 2019). It seeks declaratory relief, restitution under the Business and Professions Code for deceptive acts or practices by Defendants, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. On November 8, 2018, the Plaintiff suffered what was determined by Defendants to be a covered homeowner's loss. The Defendants and Plaintiff eventually agreed on a scope and repair cost of the loss. However, the Defendants depreciated sales tax on materials used in the repair of Plaintiff's property on the homeowner's claim and withheld profit and overhead on the claim until it was incurred, the lawsuit says. The Defendants are engage in the insurance business.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Evan Selik, Esq. Christine Zaouk, Esq. McCATHERN LLP West Sixth Street, Suite 830 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 225-6150 Facsimile: (213) 225-6151 E-mail: eselik@mcccathernlaw.com aouk@mccathemlaw.com - and - Sahag Majarian, II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: sahagii@aol.com AMY SCHERBER INC: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Wright Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Morris Wright, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Amy Scherber, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 159486/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Sept. 30, 2019) is a complaint on behalf of Plaintiff and a class of other similarly situated current and former hourly employees who worked for the Defendant, under the Civil Practice Law and Rules. The Plaintiff asserts that he and other former hourly employees of the Defendant: 1) were employed by Defendant within the State of New York as manual workers; 2) are entitled to maximum liquidated damages (for the period after April 9, 2011) and interest for being paid overtime wages and non-overtime wages later than weekly; and 3) are entitled to costs and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the New York Labor Law, and the regulations thereunder; as well as an injunction prohibiting Defendant from continuing to violate the weekly payment requirement for manual workers set forth in NYLL. The Defendant failed and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation at rates of at least 1.5 times his regular rate of pay for each and all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a work week, in violation of the New York Minimum Wage Act and its implementing regulations, adds the complaint. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a porter from August 2016 to August 2019. Defendant was engaged in the bakery and restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. Abdul Hassan Law Group, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Phone: 718-740-1000 Fax: 718-740-2000 Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com APPLIED UNDERWRITER: Obtains Summary Judgment in Pet Food Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PET FOOD EXPRESS, LTD., Plaintiff, v. APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC., APPLIED UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, and APPLIED RISK SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-CV-01211 WBS AC (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (i) granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, and (ii) denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Plaintiff Pet Food filed the lawsuit against Applied, alleging that the Defendants unlawfully marketed and sold workers' compensation insurance to California employers in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). California requires that all employers purchase workers' compensation insurance to cover employees' work-related injuries. The state also requires that all workers' compensation insurance policy forms, rates, and rating plans be filed for approval with the California Workers Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau and approved by the California Department of Insurance ("CDI"). The Defendants filed a workers' compensation insurance program known as EquityComp with the Bureau and received approval from the Department of Insurance. Thereafter, they marketed and sold the Program to the Plaintiff. After the Program's policies took effect for the Plaintiff, the Defendants required the Plaintiff to enter a Reinsurance Participation Agreement ("RPA"). Importantly, the parties agree that the RPA is not a filed retrospective rating plan. On June 20, 2016, in an administrative action challenging Applied's RPA, the California Insurance Commissioner issued a Decision and Order, holding that the RPA must be filed and approved by the Commissioner pursuant to Insurance Code Section 11735. Because the Defendants did not file the RPA before it took effect, the Commissioner found that the "RPA is void as a matter of law." In the wake of that administrative proceeding, the Defendants developed an agreement that could be sold and marketed with the CDI's approval. While there are differences between the unfiled and the filed RPAs, none of them changes the structure, material terms, or financial results to the participant. Pet Food filed a class action complaint against the Defendants asserting claims for unfair competition, rescission, declaratory relief, and fraud. On June 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting additional claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act; under the UCL, and for quasi-contract. The Defendants in turn filed a counterclaim to plaintiff's amended complaint alleging breach of contract. The Defendants subsequently moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court dismissed the RICO claims and denied the motion to dismiss in all other respects. With respect to the Plaintiff's UCL claim based on Insurance Code Section 11735, the Court found that an unfiled rate is not unlawful per se and determined that the Commissioner did not conduct the requisite formal rate disapproval hearing. The Plaintiff then moved to certify the class, which the Court subsequently denied on superiority grounds. The claims remaining are Pet Food's UCL claims for unfair competition and unjust enrichment, and the Defendant's counterclaim for breach of contract. The Plaintiff relies on the Commissioner's administrative decision and two subsequent California Courts of Appeal cases to argue that the RPA is an illegal program. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant's sale of this allegedly illegal program violates UCL Section 17200. Pet Food seeks restitution in "the amount of money left in its segregated cell" account. This money consists of funds that Pet Food has paid the Defendants for the EquityComp plans. It also seeks a return on investment of these funds. In contrast, the Defendants seek to enforce California Insurance's contract with Pet Food and allege that Pet Food remains liable for premiums, taxes, and assessments under the purchased policies. The Defendants now seek summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, on the grounds that the Plaintiff lacks standing to sue under the UCL. The Plaintiff seeks partial summary judgment on the grounds that (1) the unfair competition claim is valid as a matter of law because the RPA is illegal; (2) the Defendants are collaterally estopped from litigating that illegality; (3) the Plaintiff is entitled to restitution as a matter of law; (4) the restitution must include a return on investment on those funds; and (5) no contract exists between California Insurance and Pet Food. AS for the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Judge Shubb finds that the undisputed facts in the case are insufficient to find an economic loss because Pet Food has failed to show that the price or quality of the insurance coverage differed from the expectations Pet Food held when entering the contract. Pet Food does not allege, nor do the undisputed facts suggest, that Pet Food was dissatisfied with either the price or the coverage. With respect to the price, Pet Food has not shown that it could have obtained the same insurance at a lower price. Pet Food also cannot establish a loss with respect to Applied's policy because Pet Food received the bargained for insurance at the bargained for price. The Plaintiff therefore "got exactly what he bargained for" and did not incur an economic loss. In addition, the Judge finds that Pet Food's participation in the RPA alone does not establish a loss because the subject matter of the agreement -- insurance coverage through a captive reinsurance cell -- is not illegal. Absent allegations that the object of the contract -- insurance coverage through a captive reinsurance cell -- is illegal, the Court can preserve and enforce any lawful portion of a parties' contract that feasibly may be severed." The alleged illegality of the contract does not taint the lawful object of the contract, so even if the RPA is void and unlawful, the service it provides is not. Because the underlying service of the RPA is not illegal, Pet Food's transaction under the RPA is not an economic loss per se. Pet Food therefore bears the burden of showing economic loss through dissatisfaction with the service or the price. And Pet Food has done neither. Pet Food has not offered any other theory of loss and therefore lacks standing to sue under the UCL. Accordingly, the Judge will grant summary judgment to the Defendants. Having determined that the RPA is not illegal as a matter of law, the issues remaining under the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary judgment are (1) whether it is entitled to restitution, (2) whether it is entitled to a return on investment of the funds in the segregated cell account, and (3) whether a contract exists between Pet Food and California Insurance. Because Pet Food does not have standing to sue under the UCL, the Judge need not determine at this time whether restitution and a return on investment are the appropriate remedies for the alleged UCL violation. Further, Applied pleaded the breach of contract claim in the alternative, should the RPA be deemed void or unenforceable. Because the RPA is not void, the Judge also need not decide whether a contract exists between Pet Food and California Insurance. Based on the foregoing, Judge Shubbb granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, and denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 11, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/LYsMWR from Leagle.com. Pet Food Express Ltd., a California corporation and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Craig E. Farmer -- cfarmer@farmersmithlaw.com -- Farmer Smith & Lane LLP, Glen L. Abramson -- gabramson@bm.net -- Berger Montague PC, pro hac vice, John Douglas Moore -- jmoore@hennetzel.com -- Law Office of John Douglas Moore, Kevin Page, Cummings & Page, LLP, pro hac vice, Peter R. Kahana -- pkahana@bm.net -- Berger Montague, pro hac vice, Steven M. O'Connor -- soconnor@oconnorlawfirm.com -- O'Connor Redd, LLP, pro hac vice & Yechiel Michael Twersky -- mitwersky@bm.net -- Berger Montague, pro hac vice. Applied Underwriters, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda L. Morgan , DLA Piper LLP, Jeanette Barzelay , DLA Piper LLP, Shand Scott Stephens -- shand.stephens@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP, Spencer Y. Kook -- skook@mail.hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Travis R. Wall -- twall@mail.hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance, Inc., Defendant, represented by Shand Scott Stephens, DLA Piper LLP, Spencer Y. Kook, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Travis R. Wall, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. California Insurance Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Spencer Y. Kook, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Travis R. Wall, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Applied Risk Services, Inc., Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc. & California Insurance Company, Defendants, represented by Amanda L. Morgan , DLA Piper LLP, Jeanette Barzelay , DLA Piper LLP, Shand Scott Stephens, DLA Piper LLP & Travis R. Wall, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance, Inc. & California Insurance Company, Inc., Counter Claimants, represented by Spencer Y. Kook, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Travis R. Wall, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Applied Underwriters, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Jeanette Barzelay, DLA Piper LLP, Spencer Y. Kook, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Travis R. Wall, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Pet Food Express Ltd., a California corporation and all those similarly situated, Counter Defendant, represented by Craig E. Farmer, Farmer Smith & Lane LLP, Glen L. Abramson, Berger Montague PC, pro hac vice, John Douglas Moore, Law Office of John Douglas Moore, Kevin Page, Cummings & Page, LLP, pro hac vice, Peter R. Kahana, Berger Montague, pro hac vice, Steven M. O'Connor, O'Connor Redd, LLP, pro hac vice & Yechiel Michael Twersky, Berger Montague, pro hac vice. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc. & California Insurance Company, Counter Claimants, represented by Travis R. Wall, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. ARGOS INN: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Argos Inn, Inc. The case is styled as Lawrence Young Individually And On Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Argos Inn, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09240 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 7 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Argos Inn is a beautifully restored, LEED certified historic mansion in the heart of Ithaca, NY.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darryn Solotoff, Esq. Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste. 280 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 317-2453 Fax: (516) 706-4692 Email: ds@lawsolo.net ARS NATIONAL: Chen Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National Services Inc. The case is styled as Jenjon Chen, June Gonzales, Richard I. Gonzales individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARS National Services Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05663 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 7, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. ARS National Services, Inc. offers accounts receivable management services. It caters to financial services organizations; banks; and credit card companies. The company is based in Escondido, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com ASTRAZENECA: Monopolized Supply of Seroquel XR, Pipe Trades Asserts ------------------------------------------------------------------- Pipe Trades Services MN Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P.; AstraZeneca L.P.; AstraZeneca UK Limited; Handa Pharmaceuticals, LLC; and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09083 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 30, 2019) is a lawsuit brought by Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated end-payors to recover overcharge damages arising from AstraZeneca's anticompetitive agreements that delayed generic competition for Seroquel XR, a prescription drug approved to treat depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and other illnesses. The complaint relates that U.S. sales for branded Seroquel XR exceeded $1 billion annually for AstraZeneca prior to the introduction of generic competition. Handa/Par and Accord recognized the huge market potential for competing generic versions of Seroquel XR and each filed an abbreviated new drug application with the FDA seeking approval to market different strengths of generic Seroquel XR. In response to the threat of generic competition, AstraZeneca filed separate patent litigation against Handa/Par and Accord alleging that their purported generic versions of Seroquel XR infringed upon AstraZeneca's patents over the drug. Rather than risk losing the patent litigations and allowing generic versions of Seroquel XR to reach the market, AstraZeneca induced Handa/Par and Accord to each settle their respective patent litigation by entering into anticompetitive agreements whereby (1) Handa/Par1 and Accord agreed not to compete in the market for Seroquel XR from approximately September 29, 2011 until November 1, 2016, thereby allocating the entire Seroquel XR market to AstraZeneca during this roughly 5 year period; (2) AstraZeneca agreed not to compete in the generic Seroquel XR market from roughly November 1, 2016 until May 1, 2017 thereby allocating the entire market for generic versions of Seroquel XR to Handa/Par and Accord for this six month period; and (3) AstraZeneca made a large unjustified reverse payment--i.e., payments from the patent holder, AstraZeneca, to the alleged infringers, Handa/Par and Accord, and Defendants had no precompetitive justification or other legitimate explanation for the payments, notes the complaint. The complaint alleges that Defendants violated state antitrust and consumer protection laws, by entering into the anticompetitive agreements that allocated markets, restricted output, and improperly maintained AstraZeneca's market and monopoly power by (1) delaying competition from lower priced generic Seroquel XR that would have entered the market earlier; (2) delaying competition from authorized generic Seroquel XR that would have entered the market earlier; and (3) fixing, raising, and maintaining the prices of Seroquel XR and its generic equivalents at supra-competitive levels. Plaintiff Pipe Trades Fund is a Taft-Hartley fund authorized under Section 302 (c)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act and an employee welfare benefit plan. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP is a limited partnership organized under the laws of Delaware, with a principal place of business at 1800 Concord Pike, Wilmington, Delaware 19803.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas H. Burt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 545-4653 Email: burt@whafh.com - and - Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Jessica N. Servais, Esq. Kailey C. Mrosak, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 Email: hmsilton@locklaw.com khriebel@locklaw.com jnservais@locklaw.com kcmrosak@locklaw.com - and - Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Justin N. Boley, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-346-2222 Email: kaw@wexlerwallace.com jnb@wexlerwallace.com AWH PARTNERS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AWH Partners, LLC. The case is styled as Lawrence Young Individually And On Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. AWH Partners, LLC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09245 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 7 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. AWH Partners is a privately held real estate investment firm formed by alumni of The Blackstone Group and The Related Companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darryn Solotoff, Esq. Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste. 280 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 317-2453 Fax: (516) 706-4692 Email: ds@lawsolo.net BMW FINANCIAL: $2.4M Suit Settlement Over Canceled Leases Approved ------------------------------------------------------------------ Suzette Parmley, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a U.S. District Court judge has entered a final order approving a class action settlement of $2.4 million for 770 service members who sued BMW Financial Services, which buys vehicles from auto dealers to lease out. The settlement comes in a years-long case where one of two named plaintiffs, Walter Venneman, is himself an attorney, in addition to serving in the U.S. Army. It includes $675,000 in attorney fees and approximately $55,000 in litigation costs for the plaintiffs in addition to the $2.4 million. "The Court finds, upon review of the Settlement Agreement and consideration of the nine factors enunciated in Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153, 157 (3d Cir. 1975), that the Settlement and the proposed payment distribution program provided for in the Settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate," said U.S. District Judge John Michael Vazquez of the District of New Jersey in the Sept. 25 order. "The Parties and their counsel are ordered to implement and to consummate the Settlement Agreement according to its terms and provisions." In Venneman v. BMW FS, the plaintiffs alleged that California-based BMW FS wasn't complying with the law that protects service members who lease homes or autos by allowing them to cancel leases and surrender leased vehicles or property without penalty due to deployment. That law, known as the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, is a federal statute which provides that when a service member/soldier receives orders to go to combat or serve overseas, he or she is entitled to surrender a leased vehicle back to the manufacturer, as long as a proof of deployment notice is shown. Section 535f of the act provides, "Rents or lease amounts paid in advance for a period after the effective date of the lease shall be refunded to the lessee by the lessor within 30 days of the effective date of the termination of the lease." The plaintiffs won a summary judgment motion from U.S. District Judge Esther Salas on Dec. 30, 2013, in which the court entered an opinion holding that capitalized cost reduction is rent paid in advance that should be refunded, at least in part, when the vehicle is surrendered due to military orders. The suit claimed that BMW FS didn't adhere to this practice of paying back portions of the capitalized cost reduction. Over the last six years, the plaintiffs have been fighting to stop BMW FS from continuing this practice, according to Venneman, a senior trial counsel at Gill & Chamas in Woodbridge, who is also an Army colonel and was named lead plaintiff in the case with Theodore Collins, a military service member. The two first filed their complaint in 2009. Venneman claimed his issue arose when he was deployed to Afghanistan in 2008. Under Vazquez's Sept. 25 order, the class consists of those who (a) terminated their motor vehicle leases from Jan. 1, 2004, until Aug, 23, 2011, pursuant to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, or any analogous state statute; (b) made a capitalized cost reduction payment in connection with their leases with BMW FS; and (c) did not receive a pro rota refund of their capitalized cost reduction payment. "The Court finds that the Settlement Class meets all the applicable requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, affirms certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes, and approves the Settlement set forth in the Agreement as being fair, just reasonable, and adequate," wrote Vazquez. BMW FS's co-counsel was Ryan DiClemente, Esq. -- ryandiclemente@saul.com -- at Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr in Princeton. When reached, DiClemente said he had no comment. Michael Hassen of Walnut Creek, California, who was co-counsel for BMW FS with DiClemente, said he, too, had no comment. "It's an excellent settlement and we are very pleased with the results," said Michael J. DeBenectis, Esq. of DeBenedictis & DeBenedictis in Haddonfield, Venneman's counsel, in a phone call. "I am very honored to have been able to assist Mr, Venneman and other members of the military that deserve this money. It's a 100% refund to them." Venneman, also reached by phone, said he was "thrilled by the outcome." Venneman said the settlement has been a decade in the making. "It's a fantastic result that has changed the auto industry and how it treats service members who turn in their cars to go serve their nation." "I am honored to have participated in this case and very glad that so many service members in this class, and in other classes, will get refunds and get their hard-earned money back," added Venneman. [GN] CANADA GOOSE: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of Nov. 4 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Canada Goose Holdings Inc. (NYSE: GOOS) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Southern District of New York, and indexed under 19-cv-08204, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Canada Goose securities between March 16, 2017 and August 1, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Canada Goose securities during the class period, you have until November 4, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Canada Goose operates in two segments—Wholesale and Direct to Consumer. The Company offers parkas, jackets, shells, vests, knitwear, footwear, and accessories for fall, winter, and spring seasons. Canada Goose uses, among other materials, animal down and furs for its winter jackets and other apparel. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Canada Goose sourced the down and fur used in its clothing products in a way that treated animals in an unethical and inhumane manner; (ii) Canada Goose was thus non-compliant with relevant FTC regulations pertaining to false advertising with respect to its sourcing practices; (iii) accordingly, Canada Goose was the subject of an ongoing FTC investigation regarding false advertising; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 2, 2017, the non-profit organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ("PETA") issued a press release alleging that Canada Goose suppliers used unethical measures to obtain the down and fur used in creating the Company's clothing merchandise (the "PETA Press Release"). The PETA Press Release also stated that PETA had issued a complaint to the FTC regarding these practices because the Company represented in communications and promotional materials that its clothing was produced with down and fur from sources that treated the animals used in sourcing those materials ethically and humanely. On this news, Canada Goose's stock price fell $0.70 per share, or roughly 3.27%, to close at $20.72 per share on November 2, 2017. Nevertheless, even after the PETA Press Release, Canada Goose continued to represent that the down and fur used in producing its clothing products were collected using humane and ethical practices. Then, on June 17, 2019, the United States Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") issued a closing letter to Canada Goose's legal counsel. The FTC Closing Letter stated that the FTC had investigated Canada Goose's advertising practices for possible violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTC Act"), citing "concern[s] that Canada Goose may have made false or misleading representations about the treatment of geese whose down is used in Canada Goose's apparel." The FTC further stated that it had not recommended enforcement action against Canada Goose because the Company had "remov[ed] the advertising claims at issue from the marketplace and clarify[ied] its business practices in marketing materials." However, the FTC expressly stated that "[t]his action is not to be construed as a determination that a violation of law did not occur" and "reserve[d] the right to take further action as the public interest may warrant." (Emphasis added.) On this news, Canada Goose's stock price fell $0.50 per share, or 1.36%, to close at $36.17 per share on June 17, 2019. According to an article published on July 12, 2019 by Truth In Advertising ("TINA") - a well-known watchdog for deceptive marketing practices - Canada Goose continued to deny that it had changed the substance of its prior statements, telling TINA: "We continuously update language in our marketing materials and in our communications, and in this instance the substance of our prior statements has remained the same." At least in part as a result of Canada Goose's refusal to admit it had changed the substance of its prior marketing materials and communications, the Company's securities continued to trade at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. Finally, on August 1, 2019, the New York Post published an article entitled "Canada Goose pulls claims about its 'ethical' treatment of animals" (the "New York Post Article"). According to the New York Post Article, Canada Goose had abandoned its claims of ethical treatment of animals used in making its winter jackets and clothing in response to the FTC's regulatory review. The New York Post Article also reported that Canada Goose had removed from its website previous claims that the Company sourced coyote fur from animals in overpopulated areas, as well as videos purporting to show where Canada Goose obtained down for its parkas. The New York Post article also reported PETA's assertion that its complaint to the FTC in 2017 had precipitated the FTC's investigation into Canada Goose for potential violations of the FTC Act. On this news, Canada Goose's stock price fell $2.21 per share, or over 4.7%, to close at $44.58 per share on August 1, 2019. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com Contact: Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com[GN] CAREERBUILDER LLC: Martin Suit Asserts Breach of Fiduciary Duty --------------------------------------------------------------- CARL MARTIN, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the CareerBuilder, LLC 401(k) Plan, Plaintiff, v. CAREERBUILDER, LLC, UNKNOWN 401(k) PLAN COMMITTEE with each individual committee member identified as JOHN and JANE DOES 1-20, UNKNOWN MONITORING DEFENDANTS with individual members of the Unknown Monitoring Defendants identified as JOHN and JANE DOES 21-31 and UNKNOWN FIDUCIARIES with its individual member identified as JOHN and JANE DOES 32-42, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06463 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 30, 2019) is an action brought for breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, against the Defendants. According to the complaint, the Defendants, who during the Class Period are or were fiduciaries of the Plan, have violated their fiduciary duties owed to the Plan and its participants, including Plaintiff. The Defendants, during the Class Period, were responsible for selecting, monitoring, and removing the investments in the Plan. But instead of acting for the exclusive benefit of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries, and with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence required by ERISA, with respect to managing the Plan's assets, the Defendants forced the Plan into investments that charged excessive fees that benefitted the Plan's recordkeepers and its investment advisor at the expense of the Plan, says the complaint. Specifically, the Defendants allowed the Plan's recordkeepers, ADP, LLC, ADP Broker Dealer and, as of January 1, 2018, the Plan's new recordkeeper, Empower, and its investment advisor and/or trustee, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, to receive excessive and unreasonable compensation through: (1) direct "hard dollar" fees paid by the Plan to ADP and/or Morgan Stanley; (2) indirect "soft dollar" fees paid to ADP and/or Morgan Stanley by mutual funds added and maintained in the Plan to generate fees to ADP and/or Morgan Stanley; (3) fees collected directly by ADP and/or Morgan Stanley from mutual funds added and maintained in the Plan to generate fees to ADP and/or Morgan Stanley; and (4) float interest, access to a captive market for 401(k) rollover materials to Plan participants, and other forms of indirect compensation. In order to provide for these revenue streams, Defendants larded the Plan with excessively expensive mutual funds--to the exclusion of superior alternatives--which in turn paid ADP and/or Morgan Stanley out of the excessive fees they collected from Plan investments, asserts the complaint. These mutual funds collectively underperformed superior alternative funds for a variety of reasons, including the fact that the alternatives charged lower fees by, among other things, removing the additional payments to ADP and/or Morgan Stanley. Plaintiff brings this action by and through their undersigned attorneys based upon their personal knowledge and information obtained through counsel's investigation. Plaintiff anticipates that discovery will uncover further substantial support for the allegations in this Complaint. Plaintiff Carl Martin is a former employee of CareerBuilder, LLC, and was a "participant," in and beneficiary of the Plan as defined by ERISA. CareerBuilder, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware which is registered to do business in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Phone: (717) 233-4101 Fax (717) 233-4103 Email: donr@capozziadler.com - and - Aharon S. Kaye, Esq. GUTNICKI, LLC 4711 Golf Road, Suite 200 Skokie, IL 60076 Phone: (847) 933-9280 Fax: (847) 933-928 Email: akaye@gutnicki.com CAVALRY SPV: Oh Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CAVALRY SPV I, LLC. The case is styled as Diana Oh individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-18750 (D. N.J., Oct. 7, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Cavalry SPV I LLC is a buyer of charged off debt.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com CLEAR VIEW: Former Ebony Employees File Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Jay Connor, writing for The Root, reports that in what could be the final chapter in the tragic #EbonyOwes saga, The Root has learned that seven former employees have filed a class-action lawsuit against Ebony Magazine and its parent company, private equity firm Clear View Group. The complaint, which was filed on September 25, names Ebony Media Operations LLC; CVG Group LLC; Michael Gibson, CVG Group co-founder and chairman; and Elizabeth Burnett, vice president of operations of CVG Group, as defendants and accuses them of "betraying the magazine's employees and readers" by "engaging in a consistent pattern and practice of laying off their staff and failing to pay them their final wages." Additionally, Ebony is accused of failing to reimburse employees for work-related expenses or pay out their unused vacation days. The lawsuit also alleges that Ebony committed fraud by failing to match 401(k) contributions, in addition to failing to reimburse employees for payroll deductions that were never actually invested into 401(k) accounts. The complaint, which The Root obtained a copy of, states: "Defendants failed to reimburse these employees for unlawful deductions from their wages for purported 401(k) retirement account contributions that were never actually paid into those accounts." The tenure of the seven plaintiffs ranged from April 10, 2017, up until June 14 of this year, when the entire digital staff was laid off without compensation—as The Root previously reported. On June 15, 2016, CVG announced that it had acquired Ebony Media--which includes both Ebony and Jet magazines--and that it would be managing the operations of both going forward. However, since doing so, CVG has repeatedly failed to compensate employees and freelancers after terminating their employment, according to the complaint. This culminated in the creation of the #EbonyOwes hashtag, at least one lawsuit to obtain lost wages, and plenty of vitriol from the writing community in response. "Paying people for their work is a matter of basic human dignity," the plaintiffs told The Root in a statement. "The practice of denying employees their wages immediately before firing them is especially harmful. By filing this lawsuit, we intend to hold Ebony and CVG Group to account for their actions." Neither Ebony nor Clear View Group has responded to The Root's repeated requests for comment. We'll keep you updated as this story develops. [GN] COMMUNITY BANK: Answer to Kelly's Overdraft Fees Suit Due Oct. 15 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Community Bank, N.A.'s answer to the complaint in the class action entitled, CHARLES KELLY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. COMMUNITY BANK, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00919-MAD-CFH (N.D.N.Y., July 26, 2019), is due Oct. 15, pursuant to a stipulation submitted by the bank and approved by Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, restitution and declaratory relief from Defendant arising from unfair and unconscionable assessment and collection of Overdraft Fees or insufficient funds fees on accounts that were not actually overdrawn; and the assessment and collection of OD Fees or NSF Fees on intrabank payments and transfers. According to the lawsuit, besides being deceptive, unfair and unconscionable, these practices breach contract promises made in Community's adhesion contracts. In plain, clear, and simple language, the checking account contract documents discussing OD Fees promise that Community will only charge OD Fees or NSF Fees on transactions where there are insufficient funds to "cover" them. However, Community charges OD Fees even when there are sufficient funds to "cover" a debit card transaction, and also charges OD Fees or NSF Fees on intrabank payments and transfers knowing that there are insufficient funds in its accountholders' accounts at the time it attempts the payments and transfers. Community Bank, N.A., is a commercial bank serving customers in Upstate New York, Northeastern Pennsylvania, Vermont and Massachusetts. It is the wholly owned national banking subsidiary of Community Bank System, Inc. Community Bank is headquartered in DeWitt, New York, a suburb of Syracuse.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes are: James R. Peluso, Esq. DREYER BOYAJIAN LaMARCHE SAFRANKO 75 Columbia Street Albany, NY 12210 Telephone: 518-463-7784 E-mail: jpeluso@dbls.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW 10 th Floor Washington, D.C. 20009 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielplllc.com - and - Jeffrey Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq. Daniel Tropin, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com streisfeld@kolawyers.com tropin @kolawyers.com COOKWARE COMPANY: Johnson // Becker Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Johnson // Becker, PLLC, in connection with Sommers Schwartz, P.C., currently represents Anna Saldivar who alleges she and all California purchasers of GreenPan's products were misled by the Defendant's advertising of its GreenPan products as "toxin free," "healthy ceramic," "good for the environment," and "reinforced with diamonds." Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's products are not 100% toxin free, are not, on balance, good for the environment, do not make meals "healthier" by virtue of using the GreenPan products, and do not contain material amounts or are otherwise "reinforced" with diamonds. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant's claims regarding the PFOA, PFA, lead, and cadmium-free nature of its products is misleading. The Cookware Company (USA) LLC has previously been admonished by the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau for claims related to its GreenPan cookware products. New York-based The Cookware Company (USA) LLC manufactures and markets GreenPan cookware which is made with its patented "Thermolon(TM)" nonstick ceramic technology. GreenPan products are sold online on GreenPan's website as well as at major retailers across the United States. The lawsuit seeks to represent California purchasers of The Cookware Company (USA) LLC's GreenPan products. The lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of California. This suit is filed by Timothy J. Becker and Jennell K. Shannon of Johnson // Becker, PLLC and Jason Thompson of Sommers Schwartz, P.C. Timothy J. Becker is a founding partner of Johnson // Becker and is counsel of record on the case. Timothy J. Becker and Jennell K. Shannon manage a wide range of product liability cases in addition to collective and class action wage and hour litigation. Johnson // Becker, PLLC, is a nationwide plaintiff's law firm with experience representing consumers who have been misled or injured by consumer products. To learn more about Johnson // Becker's product liability cases, or to arrange a free, no obligation case review, please visit Johnson // Becker at https://www.johnsonbecker.com/practice-areas/product-liability/, or contact Johnson // Becker directly at (800) 279-6386. [GN] CORINDUS VASCULAR: Rauner Files Suit Over Siemens Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL RAUNER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CORINDUS VASCULAR ROBOTICS, INC., MARK J. TOLAND, DAVID W. LONG, DOUGLAS TEANY, JEFFREY C. LIGHTCAP, JEFFREY G. GOLD, CAMPBELL D. ROGERS, M.D., JAMES R. TOBIN, LOUIS A CANNON, M.D., NATHAN R. HARRINGTON, and DOUGLAS L. BRAUNSTEIN. Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09056 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 30, 2019) is an action brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other public holders of the common stock of Corindus Vascular Robotics, Inc. against the Company and its Board of Directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed merger between Corindus and Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. On August 7, 2019, the Board approved the terms of and caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which Corpus Merger, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Siemens, will merge with and into Corindus, with Corindus surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Siemens. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Corindus common stockholders will have the right to receive $4.28 in cash for each share of common stock of Corindus that they own. In order to convince Corindus' stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, on or about September 26, 2019, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and false and/or misleading Schedule 14-A Definitive Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which contains, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, incomplete and materially misleading information regarding (a) the financial projections for Corindus and (b) the inputs for the financial analyses performed by Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. to support its fairness opinion. The Proxy contains woefully inadequate disclosure regarding the assumptions and projections prepared and provided by management and the financial prospects of Corindus on a standalone basis, says the complaint. For these reasons, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless and until the material information is disclosed to Corindus stockholders in advance of the special meeting of the Company's stockholders or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act. Plaintiff is a Corindus shareholder. Corindus is a developer of precision vascular robotics for use in interventional procedures.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Phone: 212-971-1341 Fax: 212-202-7880 Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com - and - Michael J. Palestina, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Phone: 504-455-1400 Facsimile: 504-455-1498 Email: Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com DASH LUBE: Moreno Moves to Certify Class of Service Technicians --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled ROBERTO MORENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DASH LUBE, GHARDASH ENTERPRISES, INC., KAYLA CORP, collectively d/b/a as Jiffy Lube, PAYAM RYAN GHARDASH and POYA PAUL GHARDASH, Case No. 3:18-cv-01922-DMS-AHG (S.D. Cal.), seeks an order granting class certification as to the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Causes of Action of the Complaint on behalf of this class: All current and former hourly service technicians who worked for Defendants at any of their Jiffy Lube automotive oil change shops at any time from August 17, 2014 through judgment. Excluded from the above-defined putative class are: (1) Defendants; (2) the officers and directors of Defendants and the members of Defendants' officer's and director's immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; and (3) any judge to whom this action is assigned and any members of such judges' staffs and immediate family members. Mr. Moreno also asks the Court to appoint him as class representative and to appoint JCL Law Firm, APC and Sommers Schwartz, P.C. as class counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on November 15, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq. JCL LAW FIRM, APC 10200 Willow Creek Road, Suite 150 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (619) 599-8292 Facsimile: (619) 599-8291 E-mail: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Rod M. Johnston, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 436-8453 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com rjohnston@sommerspc.com DEFENDERS INC: Illegally Sent Misleading Spam E-Mails, Says Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- MONICA GEORGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DEFENDERS, INC., Case No. 6:19-cv-01822-WWB-EJK (M.D. Fla., Sept. 20, 2019), accuses the Defendant of violating Florida's Electronic Mail Communications Act by sending misleading spam e-mails with no regard for the rights of the recipients of those e-mails. Ms. George alleges that the Defendant caused thousands of misleading e-mails to be sent to her and Class Members, causing them injuries, including lost productivity and resources, annoyance, consumption of valuable digital storage space, and/or financial costs. The Defendant is a foreign corporation with its principal place of business located in Indianapolis, Indiana. The Defendant sells and installs home security systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 496-4469 E-mail: IJHiraldo@IJHlaw.com DESIGNER BRANDS: Dargoltz Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads ------------------------------------------------------------ Simmone Dargoltz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Designer Brands, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-62274 (S.D. Fla., September 12, 2019), seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Designer Brands is a retailer of designer and brand name shoes and fashion accessories. To promote its services, it engages in unsolicited SMS ads sent en masse via an auto dialer. Dargoltz did not give express consent to receive such texts. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Jordan D. Utanski, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com utanski@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com gberg@shamisgentile.com DOORDASH INC: Faces Class Suit After Using Drivers' Tips -------------------------------------------------------- A class action was filed on behalf of consumers who paid tips through the DoorDash app or website alleging the "tips" were actually used by DoorDash to fund its operations by subsidizing the guaranteed payment the company promised drivers rather than going directly to the drivers. The class action was filed in San Francisco Federal Court and claims that in the latest bout of Silicon Valley libertarian business practice DoorDash's use of these tips to assist in funding the guaranteed minimum payments it owes drivers violates the consumer protection statute of California and various other states. The complaint lays out examples of DoorDash's scheme alleging that if a guaranteed minimum payment to a Dasher (someone who does deliveries for DoorDash) for a delivery is $7.00 and the consumer leaves no tip, DoorDash pays the Dasher this $7.00. But if the consumer leaves a $3.00 tip, DoorDash uses this $3.00 toward the guaranteed $7.00 minimum payment and only pays $4.00 of its own money. The result is that the Dasher receives no additional compensation by the consumer leaving a tip through DoorDash's website or app, and the consumer is deceived into leaving a tip that merely reduces the amount that DoorDash has to pay the Dasher to meet the guaranteed minimum payment. "When a consumer uses an app to order food and chooses to use the 'tip' function, that consumer has a basic expectation that the delivery person is receiving that tip in addition to what the company promised to pay," said attorney Alfredo Torrijos. "DoorDash is using the generosity of consumers to fund their own business ventures, depriving people who work for them of their due wages." The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of any consumer who used DoorDash to place a food-delivery order and who paid a tip. To read the complaint: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lJjhxD6_Df9kiyxq3VAzGSeZr9sM0CBo/view?usp=sharing The lawsuit is Jennifer Peter and Karson Theiss et al. v. DoorDash, Inc., United States District Court Northern District of California, Case No. 3:19-cv-06098. About Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Torrijos, LLP With offices in Oakland, Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Montreal, Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Torrijos represents clients in complex litigation in state and federal courts throughout the United States. Some of our practice areas include: Class Actions, Mass Torts, Major Personal Injury, Employment Law, and Intellectual Property Rights. To learn more about us, go to: https://aswtlawyers.com/. Law Office of Richard S. Cornfeld, LLC It is the mission of this St. Louis Consumer Protection Class Action law firm to stop unfair and deceptive practices and obtain compensation for consumers wherever we can, in St. Louis or St. Louis County, Missouri, in Southern Illinois and elsewhere. To learn more, go to: http://www.cornfeldlegal.com/.[GN] ELECTROCORE INC: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against electroCore, Inc. (Nasdaq: ECOR) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of electroCore between June 22, 2018 and September 25, 2019 (the "Class Period") and/or pursuant or traceable the company's June 2018 initial public offering ("IPO"). The claims are brought under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's lead product, gammaCore, did not enjoy any advantages over other acute treatments for migraines and episodic cluster headaches; (2) that, as a result, doctors and patients were unlikely to adopt gammaCore over existing treatments; (3) that the Company's voucher program was not effective to increase adoption of gammaCore; (4) that the Company lacked sufficient resources to successfully commercialize gammaCore; (5) that the Company's business plan and strategy was not sustainable because electroCore lacked sufficient revenue to be profitable; (6) that the Company's product registry and efforts were ineffective to initiate reimbursement policies by commercial payors for gammaCore; (7) that the lack of reimbursement would materially impact adoption and sales of gammaCore; (8) that the Company lacked sufficient clinical data demonstrating that gammaCore was effective and safe for migraine prevention; (9) that, as a result, the Company's 510(k) submission for the use of gammaCore for migraine prevention was unlikely to be approved by the FDA; and (10) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On May 14, 2019, the Company announced first quarter 2019 financial results that fell short of investors' expectations, reporting $410,000 net sales and operating loss of $14.2 million. On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.58, nearly 29%, to close at $3.75 per share on May 15, 2019, thereby injuring investors. Then, on September 25, 2019, the Company revealed that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requested more information and analysis of clinical data for electroCore's 510(k) submission, which seeks an expanded indication for the use of gammaCore, the Company's treatment for pain associated with episodic cluster headache. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.79, over 23%, to close at $2.57 per share on September 25, 2019, thereby injuring investors further. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the November 25, 2019 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN] ELECTROCORE INC: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of electroCore, Inc. (NASDAQ: ECOR) (a) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's June 2018 initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering") and/or (b) between June 22, 2018 and September 25, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for electroCore investors under the federal securities laws. To join the electroCore class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1605.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 in the Registration Statement and throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's lead product, gammaCore, did not enjoy any advantages over other acute treatments for migraines and episodic cluster headaches; (2) as a result, doctors and patients were unlikely to adopt gammaCore over existing treatments; (3) the Company's voucher program was not effective to increase adoption of gammaCore; (4) the Company lacked sufficient resources to successfully commercialize gammaCore; (5) the Company's business plan and strategy was not sustainable because electroCore lacked sufficient revenue to be profitable; (6) the Company's product registry and efforts were ineffective to initiate reimbursement policies by commercial payors for gammaCore; (7) the lack of reimbursement would materially impact adoption and sales of gammaCore; and (8) as a result, electroCore's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 25, 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-1605.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Website: www.rosenlegal.com Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com, pkim@rosenlegal.com, cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Exceeding Expectations, Inc. The case is styled as Lawrence Young Individually And On Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Exceeding Expectations, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09244 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 7 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Exceeds Expectations, Inc. offers a variety of financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darryn Solotoff, Esq. Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste. 280 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 317-2453 Fax: (516) 706-4692 Email: ds@lawsolo.net EXTENDED STAY: Reservation System not ADA-Compliant, Says Mullen ---------------------------------------------------------------- BARTLEY M. MULLEN, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EXTENDED STAY AMERICA, INC. and ESH HOSPITALITY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01254-NR (W.D. Pa., Sept. 30, 2019) is a class action against Defendants, alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, expenses and costs. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants fail to provide individuals with disabilities with an ADA-compliant reservation service that would permit individuals with disabilities to reasonably and independently assess whether Defendants' guest rooms meet his or her needs in the same manner as individuals who do not need accessible rooms. In failing to provide accessible rooms with the same options and amenities offered to guests without disabilities and ADA-compliant reservation services, Defendants have engaged in illegal discrimination, excluded and deterred individuals with disabilities from patronizing Defendants' hotels, and denied individuals with disabilities full and equal access to the goods services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations that Defendants offer to individuals without disabilities, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a person with double, above-the-knee leg amputations, who uses a wheelchair for mobility. Defendants own, operate, franchise and have the right to control a network of economy, extended-stay hotels under the trade names of "Extended Stay America".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. Bryan A. Fox, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com kiverson@carlsonlynch.com bfox@carlsonlynch.com FACEBOOK INC: Investor Plaintiffs Have Until Oct. 26 to Refile Case ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Fernandez, writing for Bizjournals.com, reports that the plaintiffs in an investor lawsuit against Facebook Inc.(NASDAQ: FB) failed to make their case, a federal judge ruled April 26 in San Jose. U.S. District Judge Edward Davila dismissed a class-action lawsuit brought against Menlo Park-based Facebook and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, according to a report in Reuters. The lawsuit, which also named Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg and Chief Financial Officer David Wehner, accused Facebook of making "dozens of statements" downplaying the impact that its issues with privacy would have on the company's stock price. Judge Davila said the plaintiffs "failed to identify specific instances of the company or its executives knowingly making false statements." Davila also noted that some of the statements generally couldn't be considered the basis for a securities fraud lawsuit, as they were simply "forward-looking predictions" and "general expressions of optimism." All is not lost, however, for the plaintiffs: According to Reuters, Davila said it was "possible plaintiffs can cure their allegations by alleging, among other things, more particular facts as to why statements by the individual defendants were false when made," and gave them until Oct. 26, 2019, to refile their complaint. The original lawsuit focused on statements made in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal first reported in December 2015, where it was revealed that the British political consulting firm had accessed the data of about 85 million Facebook users. Facebook's stock then dropped sharply through 2018 on later news regarding the fallout from Cambridge Analytica and disappointing quarterly reports. While this investor lawsuit may be over for now, another lawsuit is proceeding against Facebook, brought by plaintiffs who allege that the company deceived users into thinking they could maintain control over their personal information, even as Facebook allowed outside companies like Lyft and Airbnb access to that data. In the case of "In re Facebook Inc Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 18-md-02843," U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco dismissed some of the plaintiffs' complaints, but allowed the lawsuit to proceed to trial. Chhabria wrote in his decision that Facebook's motion to dismiss was rooted in flawed assumptions regarding user privacy, stating that Facebook's problem is that it treats "treats privacy as an all-or-nothing proposition -- either you retain a full privacy interest by not sharing information with anyone, or you have no privacy interest whatsoever by virtue of sharing it even in a limited fashion." [GN] FARMERS INSURANCE: Bid to Decertify Class in Deluca FLSA Suit Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Defendant's motion to decertify the class in the case, DAVID DELUCA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00034-EDL (N.D. Cal.). The Defendant moved to decertify the class, arguing that the trial plan proposed by Plaintiffs DeLuca and Barry Francis, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is flawed. The Court held a hearing on the Defendant's motion on Aug. 27, 2019. The Plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime wages for themselves and a group of current and former special investigators. On Jan. 4, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the class and collective action in the Northern District of California alleging wage-related claims against the Defendant. The lawsuit was styled as a Rule 23 class action on behalf of California investigators and a nationwide collective action under the FLSA on behalf of special investigators throughout the United States. The Plaintiffs challenge their status as "exempt" administrative employees under the FLSA and California state law and contend they should have been compensated for all overtime hours worked. The case covers a total of 78 individuals. On Feb. 27, 2018, the Court certified the California Rule 23 class for unpaid overtime and second meal period violations. The California Rule 23 Class consists of 57 individuals, 17 of whom also affirmatively opted into the FLSA collective action part of the litigation. In total, there are 38 Named and Opt-in Plaintiffs who are part of the FLSA collective, leaving 40 absent California Class Members who did not opt into the FLSA collective action. Of the total of 78 investigators, 43 remain employed by the Defendant and 35 investigators have ended their employment. On May 15, 2019, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the administrative exemption, finding the Defendant had misclassified special investigators under both the FLSA and California state law during the relevant time period. However, it declined to grant summary judgment in favor of either party on the Plaintiffs' claims for willfulness, liquidated damages, waiting time penalties, and second meal period violations. In response to the Defendant's request that the Plaintiffs set forth a trial plan explaining how the remaining disputed issues can be tried manageably with collective evidence, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to propose their trial plan for the remaining issues and required the Defendant to provide its response to the Plaintiffs' proposal in the parties' joint statement prior to the July 2, 2019 case management conference On June 19, 2019, Plaintiffs' counsel provided the Defendant with their proposed trial plan. The Plaintiffs propose using two groups of testifying Opt-in Plaintiffs from the same sample of 20 trial witnesses: a) testimony from approximately eight of the 57 California Class Members to establish the average number of second meal periods missed per workweek, and b) testimony from approximately 12 Opt-in Plaintiffs. The Defendant complained that no explanation was provided of the methodology behind these samples, other than the Plaintiffs' cursory description that class counsel selected the witnesses to represent a range of geographic areas and levels of experience. In connection with the prior case management conference, the Defendant filed a response to the Plaintiffs' proposed trial plan along with the declaration of its expert Daniel Slottje, arguing the plan is based on the non-random, cherry-picked testimony of only Named or Opt-in Plaintiffs, ignoring the 40 absent class members who make up over half of the population. Although the matter was set for trial, trial dates have been vacated pending the anticipated reassignment. Accordingly, discovery is continuing and there is no current deadline for submission of trial exhibits or trial witnesses. At the time of filing its motion to decertify, the Defendant had deposed nine Opt-in Plaintiffs, of whom five are Rule 23 California Class members (Francis, Deluca, Daszco, O'Brien, Stewart), and four of whom are not (Reyes, Ritzema, Mitchell, Grimes). The parties were working to schedule additional opt-in depositions. The Defendant conveyed its intention to take the five depositions of the absent class members as permitted by the Court, likely followed by additional opt-in class member depositions. Magistrate Judge Laporte concludes that trial courts are encouraged to be "procedurally innovative" in managing class actions. Although the Plaintiffs' trial plan, in its current state, may not strike the appropriate balance, this does not warrant decertifying the class. Rather, the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding reasonable modifications to the Plaintiffs' trial plan after Defendant has completed the additional opt-in depositions and absent class member depositions permitted by the Court, with the understanding that the law does not require the application of statistical principles to ensure representativity. The Plaintiffs should be prepared to identify exactly which individual witnesses they intend to call at trial. Additionally, since the case only covers 78 individuals, the parties should consider whether a survey may be feasible as the Defendant's expert suggests. The Magistrate granted the Plaintiffs' request to depose the Defendant's expert Slottje in light of his new declaration submitted with the Defendant's reply in support of the motion to decertify. She further ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the Plaintiffs' trial plan as it relates to the second meal break claim. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 11, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/1fIwkh from Leagle.com. David Deluca, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, Barry Francis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public & Melissa Laughlin, individually, Plaintiffs, represented by Matthew C. Helland -- helland@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, LLP, Daniel S. Brome -- dbrome@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, LLP, Matthew H. Morgan -- morgan@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP, pro hac vice & Reena Ishver Desai -- rdesai@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, LLP, pro hac vice. Farmers Insurance Exchange, Defendant, represented by Andrew Marc Paley -- apaley@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Ryan Ashley McCoy -- rmccoy@Seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP. FCA US: Garcia Files Suit Over Illegal Marketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------ RICK-VINCENT GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:19-cv-12750-SJM-MJH (E.D. Mich., Sept. 20, 2019), alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act arising from the Defendant's transmission of prerecorded calls to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and others, promoting its services and goods. FCA US is a Michigan corporation whose principal office is located in Auburn Hills, Michigan. FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans, trucks and commercial vans, as well as distributes automotive service parts and accessories. The Company designs, manufactures, and sells or distributes vehicles under the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, FIAT and Alfa Romeo brands, as well as the SRT performance designation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nick Suciu III, Esq. Stephen Cohen, Esq. BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC 1644 Bracken Rd. Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com Stephencohen@bmslawyers.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 2875 NE 191st St., Suite 703 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Edmund A. Normand, Esq. Jacob L. Phillips, Esq. NORMAND PLLC Post Office Box 1400036 Orlando, FL 32814-0036 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 E-mail: ed@ednormand.com jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com FORD MOTOR: O'Connor Sues over Defective 10R80 Transmissions ------------------------------------------------------------ Ford Motor Co. is defending against a product liability suit in Illinois. The case is captioned, JUSTIN O'CONNOR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05045 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 8, 2019), and alleges that Defendant knew or should have known that Ford F-150 Vehicles contain one or more design and/or manufacturing defects, including but not limited to defects contained in the Vehicles' 10R80, a 10-speed automatic transmission that can shift harshly and erratically, causing the vehicle to jerk, lunge, and hesitate between gears. The Plaintiff brings this case individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons who purchased or leased Model Year 2017-2019 Ford F-150 vehicles that were designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold, and leased by Defendant or Defendant's parent, subsidiary, or affiliates. An automatic transmission is essentially an automatic gear shifter. Instead of manually shifting the gears with a clutch, the automatic transmission does it on its own. The transmission acts as a powertrain to convert the vehicle engine’s force into a controlled source of power. Accordingly, drivers need a properly functioning automatic transmission in order to safely and reliably accelerate and decelerate their Vehicles. A common design and/or manufacturing defect in Ford's 10R80 transmissions is a potentially life-threatening safety issue and Ford has refused to recall or replace the defective Transmissions, the lawsuit says. Defendant designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold, and leased Model Year 2017-2019 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with the 10R80, a 10-speed automatic transmission (“Transmission”) designed and manufactured by Ford.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Adam A. Edwards, Esq. Mark E. Silvey, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. Rachel Soffin, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com adam@gregcolemanlaw.com mark@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Edward A. Wallace, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com - and - John R. Fabry, Esq. THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 1717 N. Interstate Highway 35, Suite 305 Round Rock, TX 78664 Telephone: (512) 671-7277 Facsimile: (512) 238-0275 E-mail: JFabry@carlsonattorneys.com - and - Sidney F. Robert, Esq. BRENT COON AND ASSOCIATES 300 Fannin, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: 713-225-1682 Facsimile: 713-225-1785 E-mail: sidney.robert@bcoonlaw.com Ford is represented by: Cindy Caranella Kelly, Esq. Constantine Z Pamphilis, Esq. Hector Torres, Esq. Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP Telephone: 212-506-1737 E-mail: ckelly@kasowitz.com dpamphilis@kasowitz.com htorres@kasowitz.com - and - Bradley Edward Puklin, Esq. Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth Telephone: 312-422-0980 E-mail: puklin@dbmslaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Cadillac Infotainment Screens ------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Chin, writing for The Drive, reports that plaintiffs recently filed a class-action lawsuit against General Motors for faulty Cadillac CUE infotainment screens. Cadillac owners claim there are physical issues with the system, such as delamination of the screen along with peeling and bubbling that essentially render the touchscreen interface inoperable and in need of expensive repairs. If this sounds somewhat familiar, it's because Ford's early-gen MyFord and MyLincoln Touch infotainment systems were recently involved in a $17 million class-action lawsuit too. Like with the Ford systems, Cadillac CUE immediately gained a reputation for being slow and unstable. General Motors eventually filed a service bulletin officially through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which allegedly only notified dealers of the issue instead of owners of affected cars. The lawsuit alleges that GM knew about the problem, but refused to recall the system for a widespread fix, despite multiple reports of failure. The company also still continued to falsely advertise the "high quality" characteristic of its CUE system and its "Integrated Center Stack." More so, the suit says that many of the owners who experienced issues were forced to pay hundreds of dollars to repair the malfunctioning CUE system when it was defective from the factory. The cars affected include the following: * 2013-2017 Cadillac ATS * 2013-2017 Cadillac SRX * 2013-2017 Cadillac XTS * 2014-2017 Cadillac CTS Vin A * 2014-2017 Cadillac ELR * 2014-2017 Cadillac Escalade The lawsuit was initiated by Tonya Gruchacz of Flemington, New Jersey, represented by the law office of Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, out of Newark and Poulous LoPiccolo PC in Ocean. Documents revealed that Gruchacz was charged $1,053.58 to replace the CUE head unit on her 2014 Cadillac ATS, but the issue wasn't just isolated to her vehicle. The filing also included testimonies from a plethora of owners who took to CadillacForum.com to voice their CUE grievances as well. The lawsuit is seeking monetary compensation for those who paid to have their CUE systems replaced or were forced to purchase a new car from an irreparable system. [GN] GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Calderon Labor Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------- A employment class action is underway against Goodwill Industries of San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin Counties, Inc. The case is captioned as, EVA CALDERON, as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), on behalf of the State on California and other aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, vs. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATEO, AND MARIN COUNTIES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-577994 (Cal. Super., July 29, 2019), and seeks civil penalties for Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code. The Defendants employed Plaintiff as an hourly paid, non-exempt Sales Associate from approximately June 18, 2018 to September 17, 2018. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants at their Bay Street Pop-Up location in San Francisco, California. During her employment, the Plaintiff typically worked eight or more hours or more per day and 3-5 days per week. At the time Plaintiffs employment with Defendants ended; she earned approximately $14.00 per hour. Her job duties included, without limitation, operating cash registers, processing customer purchases, organizing and stocking merchandise, and cleaning store windows and floors. The Defendants required some employees, including Plaintiff, to execute a dispute resolution policy and/or arbitration agreement at the time of their hire or during their employment. Defendants' dispute resolution policy and/or arbitration agreement was and is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, the lawsuit says. Goodwill Industries operates as a non-profit organization. The organization offers job training and life skills.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. Orlando Villalba, Esq. Joseph Hakakian, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite I 000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com Orlando.Villalba@capstonelawyers.com Joseph.Hakakian@capstonelawyers.com GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Zhang Investor Law Files Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Greenlane Holdings, Inc. (GNLN) pursuant or traceable to the April 2019 IPO, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 12, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. To join the class action, go to http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=greenlane-holdings-inc&id=2014 or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants and its senior executives presented false and misleading financial statements or omitted to disclose: (1) the City of San Francisco had introduced a major initiative to ban the sale of e-cigarette products across three major cities and prohibit the manufacture of products at the headquarters of Greenlane's key partner, JUUL Labs; (2) if approved, the initiative would materially and adversely impact the Company's financial results and prospects; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Greenlane's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damage A class has not been certified. You may retain counsel of your choice. You may take no action at this time and be an absent class member. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff. Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Contact: Zhang Investor Law P.C. 99 Wall Street, Suite 232 New York, New York 10005 tel: (800) 991-3756 Email: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com [GN] HASBROUCK HOUSE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hasbrouck House, LLC. The case is styled as Lawrence Young Individually And On Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Hasbrouck House, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09242 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 7 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hasbrouck House, LLC is a hotel 12 miles from the city of Kingston and 19 miles from the town of Woodstock and set in a restored 18th-century stone Dutch Colonial mansion with a stable and a carriage house.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darryn Solotoff, Esq. Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste. 280 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 317-2453 Fax: (516) 706-4692 Email: ds@lawsolo.net JAMBA JUICE: Sharward Suit Pending in California Superior Court --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against Jamba Juice Company is pending. The case is captioned as Keith Sharward, on behalf of himself the General Public and all others similarly situated, vs. Jamba Juice Company and Does 1-500, the Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00261775-CU-BT-GDS (Cal. Super., July 29, 2019). Jamba Juice is a company producing blended fruit and vegetable juices, smoothies and similar products. It has more than 800 locations and franchises in various countries.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Phillip R Poliner, Esq. FINEMAN POLINER LLP Telephone: 714 620-1125 Facsimile: 714.701-0155 E-mail: Phillip@FinemanPoliner.com JUDICIAL CORRECTION: Court Denies Class Certification in Kay Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division issued a Memorandum Opinion denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned GINA KAY RAY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JUDICIAL CORRECTION SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:12-cv-02819-RDP. (N.D. Ala.) Defendant Judicial Correction Services Inc (JCS) marketed its private probation services to cities and towns throughout Alabama and, in doing so, presented them as "offender paid" services. JCS did not charge a City or Municipal Court for its services, but instead collected a "$35.00 per month flat fee" and an additional "[o]ne time probationer set-up fee of $10.00" from "probationers." The named Plaintiffs in this action were ticketed for various traffic offences and sentenced to probation by the City of Childersburg Municipal Court because they did not pay the fines or court costs imposed by the Municipal Court on the date of their sentencings. Individuals who were unable to immediately pay all fines and costs imposed by the court were placed on probation under the supervision of Judicial Correction Services (JCS). While on probation, Plaintiffs were required to pay an additional $35 to $45 a month to JCS, on top of their fines and court costs. Plaintiffs asserted that this was routinely done with no investigation into the indigency of the individual or the reasons for their inability to pay the fine and costs. Plaintiffs further alleged that these practices violated their constitutional rights. Plaintiffs sought to certify certain Rule 23(b)(3) damages classes. They define a statewide class as follows: Statewide Due Process Class -- All individuals who, as of August 28, 2010 or thereafter, were assigned by Alabama municipal courts to JCS probation for the collection of court debt and who served more than 24 months on any single probation sentence. Plaintiffs also sought to certify a narrower class, which advances two different claims: Childersburg Jail Class -- (i) All individuals who, as of August 28, 2010 or thereafter, were assigned by the Childersburg Municipal Court to JCS probation for the collection of court debt and jailed after an alleged probation violation, and (ii) All individuals who, after being assigned to JCS by August 28, 2010 or thereafter, were incarcerated, or may be subject to incarceration, without consideration of their indigency for failure to pay fines, fees and costs. A subclass of this class which would include those individuals within the above class who received such treatment in Childersburg. JSC has opposed class certification. On review, District Judge R. David Proctor concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to show that the classes they propose are clearly ascertainable. "In addition, they have not shown that common questions predominate over individual issues with respect to any of the proposed classes. Finally, they have not established this as an appropriate case to certify a Rule 23(c)(4) issue class," the Court opines. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is due to be denied, the Court states. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2mmcokv from Leagle.com Gina Kay Ray, individually and for a class of similarly situated persons or entities, Deuante T Jews, individually and for a class of similarly situated persons or entities & Timothy Fugatt, Plaintiffs, represented by Maurine C. Evans , THE EVANS LAW FIRM PC, Alexandria Parrish , THE EVANS LAW FIRM, Daniel P. Evans , THE EVANS LAW FIRM PC, Erwin Chemerinsky , G. Daniel Evans , THE EVANS LAW FIRM, P.C., 1736 Oxmoor Road, Birmingham, Alabama 35209, Leslie A. Bailey , PUBLIC JUSTICE, West Coast Office, 475 14th Street, Suite 610, Oakland, CA 94612 & Robert L. Wiggins, Jr. , WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIS LLC, The Kress Building, 301 19th Street North, Birmingham, AL 35203 Kristy Fugatt, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Hardingham , PUBLIC JUSTICE, Leslie A. Bailey , PUBLIC JUSTICE, Maurine C. Evans , THE EVANS LAW FIRM PC, Alexandria Parrish , THE EVANS LAW FIRM, Daniel P. Evans , THE EVANS LAW FIRM PC, 475 14th Street, Suite 610, Oakland, CA 94612, Erwin Chemerinsky , Robert L. Wiggins, Jr. , WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIS LLC & G. Daniel Evans , THE EVANS LAW FIRM, P.C. Judicial Corrections Services Inc, a corporation, Defendant, represented by Larry S. Logsdon , WALLACE JORDAN RATLIFF & BRANDT, LLC, Michael L. Jackson , WALLACE JORDAN RATLIFF & BRANDT, LLC, Wesley Kyle Winborn , WALLACE JORDAN RATLIFF & BRANDT, Synovus Center, 800 Shades Creek Parkway, Suite 400, Birmingham, Alabama 35209 & Wilson F. Green - wgreen@fleenorgreen.com - FLEENOR & GREEN LLP. Correctional Healthcare Companies Inc, a corporation, Defendant, represented by Larry S. Logsdon , WALLACE JORDAN RATLIFF & BRANDT, LLC, Michael L. Jackson , WALLACE JORDAN RATLIFF & BRANDT, LLC & Wesley Kyle Winborn , WALLACE JORDAN RATLIFF & BRANDT. JUUL LABS: Swearingen Suit Underway in N.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH ANN SWEARINGEN and JOHN THOMAS VIA PEAVY, the Plaintiffs, vs. JUUL LABS, INC., ALTRIA GROUP, INC., and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-00779-LSC (N.D. Ala., July 29, 2019), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 4:19-cv-04424) on August 3, 2019, and assigned to Judge William Alsup. Juul Labs sought a transfer of the case. The lawsuit claims Elizabeth Ann Swearingen became addicted to JUUL, an e-cigarette, at 18 years old. John Thomas Via Peavy became addicted to JUUL, an e-cigarette, at 17 years old. Both Plaintiffs suffer from complications related to nicotine ingestion from their JUUL products. Health authorities consider youth e-cigarette use an epidemic. Defendants are to blame. Mimicking Big Tobacco's past marketing practices, Defendants prey on youth to recruit replacement smokers for financial gain. The Defendants use the very same fraudulent and deceptive youth marketing business practices adjudged to violate federal racketeering laws. They exploit themes that resonate with teenagers while falsely denying doing so. JUUL e-cigarettes and JUUL pods deliver dangerous toxins and carcinogens to users, especially teenage users. Nicotine itself is a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems, the lawsuit says. Before the case was transferred, Judge L. Scott Coogler in Alabama granted Plaintiffs' Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Plaintiff Elizabeth Ann Swearingen's claims without prejudice. Accordingly, the claims of Swearingen were dismissed without prejudice. The claims of Peavy remain pending. Following the transfer of the case, the California court entered an Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement is due by October 23. Initial Case Management Conference is set for October 30 at 1:30 p.m. in Oakland, Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor. Juul Labs, Inc. is an electronic cigarette company which spun off from Pax Labs in 2017. It makes the Juul e-cigarette, which packages nicotine salts from leaf tobacco into one-time use cartridges. Juul Labs was co-founded by Adam Bowen and James Monsees.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Robert G. Methvin, Jr. James M. Terrell Patrick C. Marshall Courtney C. Gipson METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 939-0199 Facsimile: (205) 939-0399 E-mail: rgm@mtattorneys.com jterrell@mtattorneys.com pmarshall@mtattorneys.com cgipson@mtattorneys.com - and - Christy Crow, Esq. Mahaley McInnes, Esq. JINKS, CROW & DICKSON 219 North Prairie St. Union Springs, AL 36089 Telephone: (334) 738-4225 Facsimile: (334) 738-4229 E-mail: ccrow@jinkslaw.com mmcInnes@jinkslaw.com - and - David J. Hodge, Esq. MORRIS, KING & HODGE, P.C. 200 Pratt Avenue NE Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 536-0588 Facsimile: (256) 533-1504 E-mail: dhodge@mkhlawyers.com Defendants Altria Group Inc. and Phillip Morris USA, Inc. are represented by: R Bruce Barze, Jr., Esq. Lisa Jane McCrary, Esq. Barze Taylor Noles Lowther LLC Telephone: 205-872-1015 E-mail: bbarze@btnllaw.com lmccrary@btnllaw.com - and - Sean Andrew McCormick, Esq. Arnold And Porter LLP Telephone: 213-243-4262 E-mail: sean.mccormick@arnoldporter.com Defendant Juul Labs, Inc. is represented by: Jeffrey P Doss, Esq. Lana Alcorn Olson, Esq. Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC Telephone: 205-581-0700 E-mail: jdoss@lightfootlaw.com lolson@lightfootlaw.com - and - Austin Van Schwing, Esq. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Telephone: 415-393-8210 E-mail: aschwing@gibsondunn.com KANSAS DEPT. FOR CHILDREN: More Children Added to Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Annette Lawless, writing for KTEN, reports that a class-action lawsuit intensifies against the Kansas Department for Children and Families. Advocacy group Kansas Appleseed filed a lawsuit in the fall of 2018. Recently, it has amended its lawsuit, saying kids continue to be neglected by the state. "It's really amazingly bad," said Teresa Woody, Esq., an attorney for Kansas Appleseed. She's one of 10 attorneys guiding this case. "I think the night-to-night placements haven't changed. The kids, who are not going to school, who are being housed in offices during the day — that's still continuing." NEW CHILDREN ADDED TO LAWSUIT Advocates say kids in state custody are victims of extreme housing disruption. Four children have been added to the lawsuit: A child, known as E.B., is 7 years old. Kansas Appleseed said he "has been subjected to extreme housing disruption, moved 35 times since April 2018, and often forced to spend his days in the KVC contract agency offices between night-to-night placements. He is not receiving adequate services to meet identified mental health treatment needs." A 17-year-old girl, R.R., has been moved to more than 100 placements in nearly three years in DCF custody. The amendment to the suit said she's had night-to-night and short-term placements and overnight stays at a KVC office. "While placed in a group home in which she was the only girl, R.R. was subjected to unwanted sexual intercourse when left unattended in the TV room, resulting in an extreme deterioration in her mental health," Kansas Appleseed claims. M.A., a 12-year-old boy, has been in foster care for six years. "From January 2017 to the present, M.A. has been moved at least 62 times, including 16 placements since March 2019," Kansas Appleseed states. "Though diagnosed with ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder, disruptive mood regulation disorder and anxiety, M.A. has not received adequate or consistent mental health services while in care." J.P. is 10 years old and has not lived in a single home for more than six months since entering care in 2016. The girl has been moved through 21 placements. The suit shows that she's changed schools several times and, at times, has not attended school at all. PLACEMENT, MENTAL HEALTH INSTABILITY "These kids have so much instability in their lives. They're not going to school. They're not getting mental health treatment that they need," Woody said. "It's very sad." Several people and organizations are working on this case, including Children's Rights, the National Center for Youth Law, DLA Piper LLP and Lori Burns-Bucklew, Esq., an attorney and certified child welfare specialist. Kansas Appleseed fears the constant moving and lack care will only fuel the challenges for the 7,500 children in Kansas foster care. Woody said it can be traumatic for kids' mental health, especially if they move frequently. From July 2018 to June 2019, the advocacy group claims children are in a new placement every three months for more than 2.5 years — a rate that's more than double the recommended maximum. "If they move constantly, what's happening is they're then going back to the back of the line," Woody said. "Kids who have serious problems are not having them addressed. They're not even, you know, getting assessed, let alone treated. So, it's a big problem of a very big problem with the lack of mental health treatment and assessment." Larry Rute, Esq., a lawyer for Kansas Appleseed, said he'd like to see multiple improvements to the system, including more foster care facilities, better training for foster parents, more social workers and more staff to track children who run way. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children claims one in seven endangered runaways ends in the hands of a sex trafficker. "When kids run away, they're subject to all sorts of abuses, including human trafficking, it's extremely difficult problem," Rute said. "We want to want the state to get its arms around — the state has the responsibility here, the state has the regulatory administrative, statutory constitutional authority to fix this problem, and the state can and should do so." STATE'S RESPONSE TO SUIT KAKE News reached out to Gov. Laura Kelly's office for comment and have not heard back. It also reached out to DCF for comment on the case. They shared this statement: "The Kansas Department for Children and Families does not comment on pending litigation. However, the agency is committed to improving outcomes including strengthening families, reducing the length of stay in foster care and implementing evidence-based practices to engage families and placement stability." "Among other initiatives, during the past eight months the agency has worked to transition to new family preservation and foster care grants, institute the Family First Prevention Act and establish new practice models like Team Decision Making," DCF continued. "DCF believes these improvements can endure at a systemic level and we are confident that these changes put the agency on a trajectory toward a stronger system for Kansas children and families." This year, DCF launched a Youth Recovery Report. It documents a current list of verified runaways, recovered youth, what agency they're associated with and the child's age. As of this September, 460 youth have been recovered in 2019 - some of those may be the same child, multiple times. At least 22 were recovered in September. Also, as shared in a prior report at KAKE News, the department has staff members designated to track kids in the system. If a child runs away, they work with law enforcement agencies to help track the children. A LOOK AT THE FUTURE "We're hopeful that this administration will be more focused on that on improving the system," Woody said. "Unfortunately, we haven't seen any real improvement for these kids on a day-to-day basis at this point in time." "Well, the proof will be in the pudding," Rute echoed. "If we can have quality foster care placements, with quality foster parents properly trained to cut down on this incredible problem of insecure placements for the kids, and the lack of medical and mental health treatment for kids — that will go a long way." Kansas Appleseed and the state plan to have a mediation session this October. [GN] LA TOURELLE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against La Tourelle Inc. The case is styled as Lawrence Young Individually And On Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. La Tourelle Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09247 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 7 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. La Tourelle Inc. is a hotel and spa located at 1150 Danby Rd Route 96B, Ithaca, NY 14850-9406.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darryn Solotoff, Esq. Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste. 280 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 317-2453 Fax: (516) 706-4692 Email: ds@lawsolo.net LOVING CARE NURSING: Does not Properly Pay Nurses, Penn Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JANELLE PENN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LOVING CARE NURSING SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02873-BPG (N.D. Md., Sept. 30, 2019) is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, brought by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and others similarly situated individuals against Defendant, for failing to pay them overtime wages. Plaintiff was not paid the correct amount of overtime compensation for hours she worked in excess of 40 in a workweek even though she regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, notes the complaint. Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other relief to which she and similarly situated employees are entitled to, says the complaint. Plaintiff Janelle Penn works as a Nurse for Defendant. Defendant owns and operates the nursing service company in Maryland, where Plaintiff was employed.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road 3rd Floor Wilton, CT 06897 Phone: (203)653-2250 Fax: (203) 653-3424 Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com MARC JACOBS: Desalvo Drops ADA Class Suit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against Marc Jacobs International, LLC, has been voluntarily dismissed. The case is captioned as Brett Desalvo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Marc Jacobs International, LLC, a Delaware corporation, and Does 1-10, inclusive , the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06560-DSF-RAO (C.D. Cal., July 29, 2019). The suit alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer. On October 4, Judge Fischer entered an order to show cause. According to the Court, "In this case, Marc Jacobs International, LLC failed to plead or otherwise defend within the relevant time. The Court orders plaintiff to show cause in writing on or before October 18, 2019 why the claims against the non-appearing defendant(s) should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Failure to respond to this Order may result in sanctions, including dismissal for failure to prosecute." That same day, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, with prejudice. Marc Jacobs's line of business includes owning or leasing franchises, patents, and copyrights which they in turn license others to use.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com MDL 2804: Court Certifies Negotiation Class in Opiate Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION, THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: All Cases, and The County of Summit, Ohio, et al., v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., Case No. 18-op-45090, Case No. 1:17-MD-2804 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Dan Aaron Polster of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted in part the Plaintiffs' Renewed and Amended Motion for Certification of Rule 23(b)(3) Cities/Counties Negotiation Class. On Dec. 12, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all opioid-related litigation pending in federal courts throughout the United States to the forum for consolidated pretrial proceedings. At present, the MDL encompasses more than 2,000 individual actions. Most of these constituent cases have been filed by cities and counties throughout the United States seeking, inter alia, reimbursement for monies they have expended -- and continue to spend -- addressing the opioid crisis. The Defendants include numerous manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies. Beyond the thousands of cases pending, many other municipalities are litigating similar opioid-related lawsuits in state courts throughout the United States. From the outset of the MDL, the Court has encouraged the parties to settle the case as it would expedite relief to communities so they can better address the devastating national health crisis. A Court-appointed Special Master (Prof. Francis McGovern) has overseen extensive settlement negotiations. The Special Master, in conjunction with experts and the parties in the case, developed an innovative solution: a new form of class action entitled "negotiation class certification." The idea is to undertake the class certification and opt-out process prior to a settlement being reached, as is done in a normal class action geared toward trial. It will fix a class size and provide the Defendants a sense of the precise scope of the group with whom they are negotiating. By motion dated June 14, 2019, the Plaintiffs' leadership team in the MDL filed a motion on behalf of 51 cities and counties entitled, Motion for Certification of Rule 23(b)(3) Cities/Counties Negotiation Class. The Court held a hearing on the initial motion on June 25, 2019, and at that time adopted a briefing schedule enabling the Plaintiffs to re-brief the motion in light of the filed oppositions. Accordingly, on July 9, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Renewed and Amended Motion for Certification of Rule 23(b)(3) Cities/Counties Negotiation Class. On Aug. 6, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the motion. The negotiation class certification process unfolds in five stages: 1. Allocation/Voting: The Class members first develop a plan for allocating a lump sum settlement among the class and a plan for voting on the reasonableness of any lump sum settlement that is achieved. This enables each class member to know its settlement share and franchise prior to the opt-out deadline. The MDL Plaintiffs' leadership has met with numerous groups of the Plaintiffs and the public health experts to create the allocation plan. The plan proposes distributing 75% of the lump sum to counties, with each county's share calculated according to three equally-weighted public health factors. The county's share is then divided among the county and its constituent cities, ideally through negotiated agreement. Of the remaining 25%, 10% is set aside for a "Private Attorneys' Fee Fund," from which private attorneys -- defined as any counsel with representation agreements with one or more Class members executed as of June 14, 2019 -- could seek fees in lieu of enforcement of private contingency fee contracts with their clients. Finally, 15% is set aside for a "Class Members' Special Needs Fund," to cover the special needs and expenditures of any Class member that are not addressed by the class-wide allocation formula, including expenses associated with litigation. All of these amounts are subject to Court approval and any of the 25% (the Private Attorneys' Fee Fund and the Class Members' Special Needs Fund) not so distributed is then re-distributed across the class according to the allocation plan. The voting model is both simple and complex. If a lump sum settlement is reached with a Defendant, each class member will be given the opportunity to cast a single, simple, yes/no vote as to whether the size of the lump sum settlement is sufficient. The votes will then be counted to ensure the settlement is accepted by 75% of all voting entities by number, 75% of all voting entities by population, and 75% of all voting entities by allocation; each of those three types of votes will be counted twice, once among jurisdictions that had filed lawsuits as of June 14, 2019 and once among jurisdictions that had not. The various counts ensure that: (1) the plethora of smaller counties cannot alone control an outcome (the population vote guards against that); (2) the plethora of small-recovery counties cannot alone control an outcome (the allocation vote guards against that); and that (3) neither the litigating nor non-litigating entities alone can control an outcome. 2. Class Certification: With the allocation and voting plans in place, the Plaintiffs move for certification of the negotiation class, as have the present movants. 3. Notice and Opt-Out Period: If the Court approves the motion, the class members are given notice of class certification and an opportunity to opt out. The Movants propose a 60day opt-out period. During that time, the class members can assess their share of a lump sum settlement and the proposed voting structure at the class website to determine whether they want to be part of the negotiating group. 4. Lump Sum Settlement Negotiation: At the conclusion of the opt-out period, with the size of the class set, the class is ready to negotiate a settlement with one or more defendants. No Defendant is required to negotiate with the class and the underlying litigation activities continue unabated. 5. Judicial Approval, Including Class Vote: If a settlement is reached, the parties move for judicial approval, as required by Rule 23(e). That process encompasses three parts: (a) the Court must preliminarily approve the settlement; (b) the class members are then given their opportunity to vote on the settlement, and they may file objections with the Court; and (c) if the Class votes to accept the settlement, the class counsel moves for final approval. The Court would then make the same determination as to the settlement's reasonableness as Rule 23 requires it to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2).in any class action. Judge Polster finds that the class members' rights are protected in several critical ways. At the front end, before having to make the opt-out decision, the class members can calculate their share of any future settlement; the groups of the Plaintiffs and their attorneys have worked together to establish a public health-based settlement allocation plan, the details of which are all made available to the Class and public at a case website, www.opioidsnegotiationclass.info. At the back end, each class member will be entitled to vote (yes or no) on whether a proposed settlement amount is sufficient, and no settlement will be deemed accepted unless it garners a supermajority (75%) of those voting; a proposal will need to secure approval from six separate supermajority vote counts, reflecting different slices of the class. Additionally, of course, the Court protects the absent class members: Rule 23 requires that the Court make specific determinations before permitting a class action to go forward, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(3), (c), (g), and similarly requires that the Court -- independent of the class's vote — approves any proposed settlement and attorney's fees. The Judge is mindful of the fact that it is a novel procedure and one opposed by the vast majority of State Attorneys General, who themselves are actively pursuing important State opioid litigation. He has determined that the procedure is a legitimate one, that certification is warranted based on the facts of the case, and that the whole process is more likely to promote global settlement than it is, as the Attorneys General argue, to impede it. Regardless, there is nothing coercive about the process: no Defendant has to employ it. There is nothing exclusive about it: it does not interfere with the States settling their own cases any way they want, and it does not stop parties in the MDL from settling in other ways. And there is nothing intrusive about the process: it does not stop any litigation from continuing and in no way interferes with the upcoming bellwether trials in the MDL. The process simply provides an option -- and in the Court's opinion, it is a powerful, creative, and helpful one. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Polster certified a Negotiation Class on the claims and issues identified, against the Defendants identified, and appointed the Class Counsel. The Negotiation Class is authorized to negotiate settlements with any of the 13 sets of Defendants identified, on any of the claims or issues identified, or those arising out of a common factual predicate. If the Class Counsel seek to utilize the Negotiation Class to negotiate against any other Defendants, they may later make a formal motion to amend the class certification order accordingly. As set forth in an accompanying Order, the Judge does not authorize the Negotiation Class to negotiate on behalf of cities and counties against their State governments, as its proponents suggested. This puts to rest a concern raised by the Attorneys General. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 11, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/8F9U5d from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Peter H. Weinberger, Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber, Steven J. Skikos, Skikos Crawford Skikos & Joseph, Troy A. Rafferty, Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor, Bonnie A. Kendrick, Dugan Law Firm, Celeste Brustowicz, Cooper Law Firm, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Frank L. Gallucci, III -- fgallucci@pglawyer.com -- Plevin & Gallucci, James R. Dugan, II, Dugan Law Firm, Linda J. Singer, Motley Rice, Michael J. Fuller, Jr., McHugh Fuller Law Group, Paul T. Farrell, Jr., Greene Ketchum Farrell Bailey & Tweel & Peter James Mougey, Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor. Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph F. Rice -- jrice@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice, Paul T. Farrell, Jr., Greene Ketchum Farrell Bailey & Tweel, Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Simmons Hanly Conroy, Amy M. Carter, Simon Greenstone Panatier, Bonnie A. Kendrick, Dugan Law Firm, Celeste Brustowicz, Cooper Law Firm, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Frank L. Gallucci, III, Plevin & Gallucci, James R. Dugan, II, Dugan Law Firm, Linda J. Singer, Motley Rice, Peter James Mougey, Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor, Peter H. Weinberger, Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber & Steven J. Skikos, Skikos Crawford Skikos & Joseph. Plaintiffs' Executive Committee, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Ellen Relkin, Weitz & Luxenberg, Erin K. Dickinson, Crueger Dicksonson, Hunter J. Shkolnik -- hunter@napolilaw.com -- Napoli Shkolnik, James E. Cecchi, Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, James R. Dugan, II, Dugan Law Firm, James Dennis Young, Morgan & Morgan, Lynn L. Sarko, Keller Rohrback, Michael J. Fuller, Jr., McHugh Fuller Law Group, Peter James Mougey, Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor, R. Eric Kennedy, Weisman, Kennedy & Berris, Roland K. Tellis, Baron & Budd, W. Mark Lanier, Lanier Law Firm, Aelish Marie Baig, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Anthony D. Irpino, Irpino Avin Hawkins, Anthony J. Majestro, Powell & Majestro, Bonnie A. Kendrick, Dugan Law Firm, Celeste Brustowicz, Cooper Law Firm, Evan M. Janush, Lanier Law Firm, Frank L. Gallucci, III, Plevin & Gallucci, Linda J. Singer, Motley Rice, Mark P. Chalos, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Mark P. Pifko, Baron & Budd, Paul T. Farrell, Jr., Greene Ketchum Farrell Bailey & Tweel, Paul J. Geller, Law Office of Robert J. Hunt, Paulina Do Amaral, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Peter H. Weinberger, Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber, Salvatore C. Badala -- sbadala@napolilaw.com -- Napoli Shkolnik & Steven J. Skikos, Skikos Crawford Skikos & Joseph. Melissa Ambrosio, Erin Doyle, Darren and Elena Flanagan, James and Teri Holland, Shannon Hunt, Tyler M Roach, Walter and Virginia Salmons, Ms. Rachel Wood & Amanda M. Hanlon, Plaintiffs, represented by Celeste Brustowicz, Cooper Law Firm & Theresa A. Richthammer, Gallagher, Sharp, Fulton & Norman. Derric and Ceonda Rees, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste Brustowicz, Cooper Law Firm, Scott R. Bickford, Martzell & Bickford & Theresa A. Richthammer, Gallagher, Sharp, Fulton & Norman. Purdue Pharma L.P., Defendant, represented by Andrew W. Durland, Blair Graffeo Mattei, Frazer Greene Upchurch & Baker, Booker T. Shaw, Thompson Coburn, Colin H. Hunter, Angeli Law Group, Donna M. Welch, Kirkland & Ellis, Eric A. Riegner, Locke, Reynolds, Boyd & Wiesell, Hannah E. Tokerud, Holland & Hart, Hayden A. Coleman, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Jenai M. Brackett, FROST BROWN TODD LLC, Judy L. Leone, Dechert, Noelle M. Reed, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Robert S. Hoff, Wiggin and Dana LLP, pro hac vice, Ronald J. Friedman, Karr Tuttle Campbell, Samuel E. Masur, Gordon Arata Montgomery Barnett, Stephanie R. Lakinski, Karr Tuttle Campbell, Stephen C. Matthews, DLA Piper, Thomas Dean Adams, Karr Tuttle Campbell, William W. Mercer, Holland & Hart, Christopher Boisvert, Copo Strategies, Daniel J. Buckley, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Elizabeth Y. Ryan, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, Gretchen Maria Wolf, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP, John T. Cox, III, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, John D. Volney, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, Kevin James Minnick, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Lisa Michelle Gilford, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Mark S. Cheffo, Dechert, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Paul Byrd Simon, Gordon Arata, R. Ryan Stoll, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Sean O. Morris, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Sheila L. Birnbaum , Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Troy A. Bozarth, HeplerBroom, Victor A. Walton, Jr., Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease & W. Jason Rankin, HeplerBroom LLC. Purdue Pharma Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew W. Durland -- adurland@karrtuttle.com -- Blair Graffeo Mattei, Frazer Greene Upchurch & Baker, Booker T. Shaw, Thompson Coburn, Colin H. Hunter, Angeli Law Group, David H. Angeli, Angeli Law Group, Donna M. Welch, Kirkland & Ellis, Eric A. Riegner, Locke, Reynolds, Boyd & Wiesell, Hannah E. Tokerud, Holland & Hart, Hayden A. Coleman, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Jenai M. Brackett, FROST BROWN TODD LLC, Judy L. Leone, Dechert, Noelle M. Reed, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Robert S. Hoff, Wiggin and Dana LLP, pro hac vice, Ronald J. Friedman, Karr Tuttle Campbell, Samuel E. Masur, Gordon Arata Montgomery Barnett, Stephanie R. Lakinski, Karr Tuttle Campbell, Stephen C. Matthews, DLA Piper, Thomas Dean Adams, Karr Tuttle Campbell, William W. Mercer, Holland & Hart, Christopher Boisvert, Copo Strategies, Daniel J. Buckley, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Elizabeth Y. Ryan, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, Gretchen Maria Wolf, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP, John T. Cox, III, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, John D. Volney, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, Kevin James Minnick, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Lisa Michelle Gilford, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Mark S. Cheffo, Dechert, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Paul Byrd Simon, Gordon Arata, R. Ryan Stoll, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Sean O. Morris, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Sheila L. Birnbaum, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Troy A. Bozarth, HeplerBroom, Victor A. Walton, Jr., Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease & W. Jason Rankin, HeplerBroom LLC. Purdue Frederick Company, Defendant, represented by Andrew W. Durland, Booker T. Shaw, Thompson Coburn, Colin H. Hunter, Angeli Law Group, David H. Angeli, Angeli Law Group, Donna M. Welch, Kirkland & Ellis, Eric A. Riegner, Locke, Reynolds, Boyd & Wiesell, Hannah E. Tokerud, Holland & Hart, Jenai M. Brackett, FROST BROWN TODD LLC, Judy L. Leone, Dechert, Noelle M. Reed, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Ronald J. Friedman, Karr Tuttle Campbell, Samuel E. Masur, Gordon Arata Montgomery Barnett, Stephanie R. Lakinski, Karr Tuttle Campbell, Stephen C. Matthews, DLA Piper, Thomas Dean Adams, Karr Tuttle Campbell, Christopher Boisvert, Copo Strategies, Daniel J. Buckley, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Elizabeth Y. Ryan, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, John T. Cox, III, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, John D. Volney, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, Kevin James Minnick, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Lisa Michelle Gilford, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Mark S. Cheffo, Dechert, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Paul Byrd Simon, Gordon Arata, R. Ryan Stoll, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Sean O. Morris, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Troy A. Bozarth, HeplerBroom, Victor A. Walton, Jr., Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease & W. Jason Rankin, HeplerBroom LLC. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig Andrew Stanfield, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Donna M. Welch, Kirkland & Ellis, Harvey Bartle, IV, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Leland G. Horton, Bradley Murchison, Matthew Ambrose Martin, Haar & Woods, Mitchell G. Blair, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Richard S. Crisler, Bradley, Murchison, Kelly & Shea, Robert T. Haar, Haar & Woods, Thomas F. Hurka, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, pro hac vice, Thomas E. Rice, Jr., Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, Adam M. Hammoud, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Albert J. Lucas, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Alison Tanchyk, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Brian M. Ercole, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Collie Fitch James, IV, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Eric W. Sitarchuk, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Eric M. Sommer , Sommer Udall Hardwick & Jones, Georgia K.E. Yanchar, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Jason J. Blake, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Jeremy A. Menkowitz, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Jonathan L. Stern, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Mark S. Cheffo, Dechert, Mark Fiore, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Michael C. Mims, Bradley Murchison et al, Nancy Patterson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Nathan J. Andrisani, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Rebecca J. Hillyer, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Richard G. Shephard, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Sean O. Morris, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Stacey Anne Mahoney, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Steven A. Reed, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Tinos Diamantatos, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius & Wendy West Feinstein, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. Cephalon, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig Andrew Stanfield, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Donna M. Welch, Kirkland & Ellis, Harvey Bartle, IV, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Leland G. Horton, Bradley Murchison, Matthew Ambrose Martin, Haar & Woods, Mitchell G. Blair, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Richard S. Crisler, Bradley, Murchison, Kelly & Shea, Robert T. Haar, Haar & Woods, Thomas F. Hurka, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, pro hac vice, Thomas E. Rice, Jr., Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, Adam M. Hammoud, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Albert J. Lucas, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Alison Tanchyk, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Brian M. Ercole, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Collie Fitch James, IV, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Eric W. Sitarchuk, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Eric M. Sommer , Sommer Udall Hardwick & Jones, Georgia K.E. Yanchar, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Jason J. Blake, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Jeremy A. Menkowitz, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Jonathan L. Stern, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Mark S. Cheffo, Dechert, Mark Fiore, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Michael C. Mims, Bradley Murchison et al, Nancy Patterson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Nathan J. Andrisani, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Rebecca J. Hillyer, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Richard G. Shephard, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Sean O. Morris, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Stacey Anne Mahoney, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Steven A. Reed, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Tinos Diamantatos, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius & Wendy West Feinstein, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. MEREDITH CORPORATION: Nov. 5 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Meredith Corporation (MDP) Class Period: 5/10/2018-9/4/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 5, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-mdp ProPetro Holding Corp. (PUMP) Class Period: 3/17/2017 - 8/8/2019 or purchase of securities issued either in or after the March 2017 Initial Public Offering. Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 15, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-pump If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About ClaimsFiler ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN] MIRROR LAKE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mirror Lake Inn, Inc. The case is styled as Lawrence Young Individually And On Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Mirror Lake Inn, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09241 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 7 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mirror Lake Inn, Inc. operates a lakefront resort in the Adirondack Mountains.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darryn Solotoff, Esq. Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste. 280 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 317-2453 Fax: (516) 706-4692 Email: ds@lawsolo.net MYRIAD GENETICS: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Myriad Genetics, Inc. ("Myriad" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MYGN) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the District of Utah, and indexed under 19-cv-00707, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Myriad securities between September 2, 2016 and August 13, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Myriad within the class period, you have until November 26, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Myriad is a molecular diagnostic company that develops and markets predictive, personalized, and prognostic medicine tests worldwide. Myriad offers, among other products, GeneSight, a DNA genotyping test to aid psychotropic drug selection for depressed patients; and Foresight, a prenatal test in the expanded carrier screening market for future parents to assess their risk of passing on a recessive genetic condition to their offspring. GeneSight is offered as both a psychotropic1 test ("GeneSight Psychotropic") and MTHFR (an enzyme required to convert folic acid and dietary folate into its active form, which is called l-methylfolate) test. On September 1, 2016, Myriad announced the completion of its acquisition of Assurex Health, Inc. ("Assurex"). Myriad acquired GeneSight through this acquisition. On July 31, 2018, Myriad announced that it had closed its acquisition of Counsyl, Inc. ("Counsyl"). The acquisition of Counsyl provided Myriad with two new products—ForeSight and Prelude—in the expanded carrier screening and non-invasive prenatal testing markets, respectively. The Company estimated that these markets would grow to approximately three million tests performed in the U.S. and $1.5 billion over the next five years. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) GeneSight lacked evidence or information sufficient to support the tests in their current form, including their purported benefits; (ii) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had requested changes to GeneSight and questioned the validity of the test's purported benefits; (iii) Myriad had been in ongoing discussions with the FDA regarding the FDA's requested changes to GeneSight; (iv) Myriad's acquisition of Counsyl—and thereby, Foresight—caused the Company to incur the risk of suffering from lower reimbursement for its expanded carrier screening tests, which had the potential to, and actually did, materialize into a material negative impact on the Company's revenue; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 13, 2019, during after-market hours, Myriad issued an earnings release, filed as an exhibit to a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC, wherein the Company reported its fiscal fourth quarter and full year 2019 financial results. Therein, Mark C. Capone, Myriad's President and Chief Executive Officer, disclosed that "[u]nfortunately, revenue in the fourth quarter was two percent below expectations largely due to lower reimbursement for [the Company's] expanded carrier screening test"--i.e., Foresight. Later that day, in an earnings conference call with investors and analysts, R. Bryan Riggsbee, Myriad's Chief Financial Officer, revealed that "the FDA requested changes to the GeneSight test offering" after Myriad had provided the FDA with clinical evidence and other information to support GeneSight Psychotropic, and that the Company has "been in ongoing discussions with the FDA regarding its request." Riggsbee continued by stating that "[a]lthough [Defendants] continue to disagree the changes to the tests are required, on August 10, 2019, [Defendants] submitted a proposal regarding the reporting of GeneSight test results to healthcare providers that we believe address the FDA's principal concerns." Also later that day, Myriad filed an Annual Report on Form 10-K with the SEC, reporting the Company's financial and operating results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019 (the "2019 10-K"). In the 2019 10-K, Defendants disclosed that the FDA had questioned whether the validity of GeneSight's purported benefits had been established. The 2019 10-K also revealed that, since at least late 2018, the FDA had increasingly questioned the claims of marketed genetics tests, such as GeneSight. On this news, Myriad's stock price fell $19.05 per share, or 42.76%—nearly half of the Company's total stock value—to close at $25.50 per share on August 14, 2019. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of Oct. 18 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff in a securities class action on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Nektar Therapeutics ("Nektar" or the "Company") (NKTR) between February 15, 2019 and August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Nektar securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options, please visit Nektar Shareholder Class Action or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company did not comply with current good manufacturing practices; (2) that, as a result, batches of NKTR-214 were not produced consistently and differed meaningfully; (3) that clinical results from PIVOT-02 differed based on the batch of NKTR-214 used in the study; (4) that, as a result, the PIVOT-02 study did not produce statistically significant results to support a finding of clinical benefit; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On August 8, 2019, after the market closed, the Company revealed that a manufacturing issue caused two batches of bempegaldesleukin to differ from the other 20 batches that were produced. Moreover, these batches resulted in variable clinical benefit than other batches used in the Company's PIVOT-02 clinical trial . On this news, the Company's share price fell $8.65, or nearly 30% to close at $20.92 per share on August 9, 2019. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 18, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased Nektar securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/nektartherapeutics-nktr-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-177/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact: Matthew E. Guarnero,Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP Website: https://www.bernlieb.com Tel: (877) 779-1414 Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Zhang Investor Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Zhang Investor Law announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Nektar Therapeutics (NKTR) between February 15, 2019 and August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 18, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff. If you wish to join the case go: http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=nektar-therapeutics&id=1997 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Sophie Zhang, Esq. or Spencer Lee toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com, slee@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action. According to the case, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (i) that the Company did not comply with current good manufacturing practices; (ii) as a result, batches of NKTR-214 were not produced consistently and differed meaningfully; (iii) clinical results from PIVOT-02 differed based on the batch of NKTR-214 used in the study; and (iv) as a result, the PIVOT-02 study did not produce statistically significant results to support a finding of clinical benefit. A class has not been certified. You may retain counsel of your choice. You may take no action at this time and be an absent class member. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff. Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Contact: Zhang Investor Law P.C. 99 Wall Street, Suite 232 New York, New York 10005 tel: (800) 991-3756 Email: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com [GN] NETAPP INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Oct. 15 Plaintiff Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming October 15, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of NetApp, Inc. ("NetApp" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NTAP) investors who purchased securities between May 22, 2019 and August 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. On August 1, 2019, after the market closed, the Company reported preliminary first quarter 2019 adjusted earnings per share of $0.55 to $0.60, below the average estimate of $0.83, and net revenue of $1.22 billion to $1.23 billion, below the average estimate of $1.39 billion. Additionally, the Company lowered its 2020 outlook and expected net revenue to decline between 5% and 10% year-over-year. On this news, the Company's share price fell as much as $11.67, or over 20%, to close at $46.04 per share on August 2, 2019, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was unable to close large deals within the quarter and that the deals were pushed out to subsequent quarters or downsized; (2) that, as a result, the Company's revenue would be materially impacted; (3) that, as a result, the Company would lower its fiscal 2020 guidance; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP. If you purchased or otherwise acquired NetApp securities during the Class Period you may move the Court no later than October 15, 2019 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. Contact: Lesley Portnoy, Esq. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 Website: www.glancylaw.com Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com, LPORTNOY@GLANCYLAW.COM [GN] NEW BAY ROSE: Palaguachi Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Rosa Salto Palaguachi, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. New Bay Rose Nails Spa Inc. d/b/a New Bay Rose Nails Spa, Weiming Liu a/k/a Amy, Defendants, Case No. 716693/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., Sept. 30, 2019) is an action brought by Plaintiff on her own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated and non-exempt employees of the Defendants, alleging violations of the New York Labor Law and New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the NYLL and NYCRR by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to: pay their employees, including Plaintiff, unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 hours each week; provide wage notice at the time of hiring; provide wage statements; and provide accurate pay stubs, says the complaint. Plaintiff Maria Rosa Salto Palaguachi was employed by the Defendant as a nail technician, from 2010 to January 1, 2014 and from March 2015 to July 20, 2019. New Bay Rose Nails Spa Inc., is a domestic corporation organized under the laws of the New York State with a principal business address at 329 City Island Ave., Bronx, NY 10464.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zindzi Baugh Corbett, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC. 136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Phone: (718) 353-8522 Fax: (718) 353-6288 Email: zbaughcorbett@hanglaw.com NINTENDO CO: Amended Suit Says Joy-Cons Have Drift Problem ---------------------------------------------------------- Matt Kim, writing for IGN, reports that the law firm of Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith have amended its class-action lawsuit on behalf of anyone who purchased a Nintendo Switch, Switch Lite, and separate Nintendo Switch Joy-Con. "The Amended Complaint alleges that the Joy-Con controllers are defective, leading to a phenomenon known as 'drift.'" The Amended Complaint also claims that Joy-Cons are in breach of warranty, fraud, and "violations of numerous state consumer protection statutes." Original story follows: Nintendo could find itself the target of a class action lawsuit over the drift problem found in its Nintendo Switch Joy-Cons. The law firm of Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith (CSK&D) has filed a class action lawsuit against Nintendo in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. CSK&D allege that Nintendo's Joy-Cons violate "various consumer protection statutes as well as various warranty and common law claims." The law firm asserts that the Joy-Con controllers are "defective" as a result of drifting, or where the Joy-Cons "automatically register movement when the joystick is not being controlled by the user and interfere with gameplay." CSK&D currently has a form on its website asking users affected by the Nintendo Joy-Con drift to submit their information for the class action lawsuit. What is Joy-Con Drift and Is There a Fix? CSK&D already defined drift as the Joy-Cons registering input where there is none. In practical terms, this could manifest when you're playing a game and suddenly the reticle or character moves towards one direction without your input. This is a very annoying problem, and one that's appeared early on in the Nintendo Switch life cycle. There's also seemingly no permanent solution. One Joy-Con teardown published on Reddit by user u/rainbopython back in April claims that the drift problem could be caused by wear-and-tear over time. Though it's still not clear what actually causes the controllers to drift. What Has Nintendo Said About Joy-Con Drift? We've reached out to Nintendo to ask about the Joy-Con drifting issue, and the company has issued the following statement: "At Nintendo, we take great pride in creating quality products and we are continuously making improvements to them. We are aware of recent reports that some Joy-Con controllers are not responding correctly. We want our consumers to have fun with Nintendo Switch, and if anything falls short of this goal we always encourage them to visit https://support.nintendo.com so we can help." We also reached out to Nintendo about the class action lawsuit, but the company responded: "We have nothing to announce on this topic." Will the Switch Lite Joy-Cons Also Drift? One of the major worries of the Joy-Con drift issue actually pertains to the upcoming Nintendo Switch Lite. Unlike the current Nintendo Switch, which has removable and replaceable Joy-Cons, the controllers on the Switch Lite are permanently attached. So if the thumbsticks on the Switch Lite begin to drift, users might have no choice but to send their entire Switch consoles in for repairs. When we asked Nintendo about the possibility of drift on the Switch Lite or any of the new Joy-Con colors, the company offered this short statement: "We expect our hardware to perform as designed." Nintendo Switch Joy Con Colors updated Nintendo is at least aware of the Joy-Con drift issue, but it seems customers aren't satisfied with that response. CSK&D has also seen enough complaints over the Joy-Con to open a class action lawsuit in the first place. We will have more info on the developing case as details emerge, so check back with IGN for more on the Joy-Con drift controversy. [GN] OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Robbins Geller Notes of Nov. 16 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that the Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of Ollie's (NASDAQ: OLLI) securities between June 6, 2019 and August 28, 2019 (the "Class Period") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case is captioned Stirling v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-08647, and is assigned to Judge Oetken. The Ollie's class action lawsuit charges Ollie's and three of its executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Ollie's securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Ollie's class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Ollie's class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Ollie's class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Ollie's class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Ollie's class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the Ollie's class action lawsuit, please visit our website by clicking here or contact Brian Cochran at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Ollie's class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than November 16, 2019. Ollie's is an extreme value retailer that offers brand name merchandise at dramatically reduced prices. The Ollie's class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Ollie's had suffered a supply chain issue that impacted the initial inventory available at new stores; (2) consequently, Ollie's lacked sufficient inventory to meet demand at certain store locations; (3) as such, Ollie's comparable-store sales were likely to decrease quarter over quarter; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Ollie's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of this information being withheld from the market, Ollie's securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, with its stock price reaching a high of more than $97 per share. On August 28, 2019, Ollie's reported that its comparable-store sales had decreased 1.7% during the second quarter of 2019 and lowered its fiscal 2019 guidance. During a conference call held the same day to discuss the financial results, Ollie's Chief Operational Officer, defendant John Swygert, disclosed that a "bottleneck issue" had existed in the supply chain "for most all of Q2" and was not corrected until "the last week of the quarter." On this news, the price of Ollie's shares fell more than 27% to close at $56.36 per share on August 29, 2019. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For six consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. https://www.linkedin.com/company/rgrdlaw https://twitter.com/rgrdlaw https://www.facebook.com/rgrdlaw Contact: Brian Cochran, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Tel: 800-449-4900 Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com [GN] OVIEDO BEAUTIFUL: Sarno Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN SARNO on behalf of Plaintiff and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OVIEDO BEAUTIFUL FLOWERS AND GIFTS, INC., JUANA I. LORA and LORENZO LORA, Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-01873 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 30, 2019) is an action brought against Defendants to recover unpaid wages, compensation and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a floral delivery driver from approximately November 14, 2017 until June 18, 2019. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff full minimum wage in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. OVIEDO BEAUTIFUL FLOWERS AND GIFTS, INC., was Plaintiff's employer as defined by law and a corporation conducting business in this judicial district.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd W. Shulby, Esq. TODD W. SHULBY, P.A. 1792 Bell Tower Lane Weston, FL 33326 Phone: (954) 530-2236 Facsimile No.: (954) 530-6628 Email: tshulby@shulbylaw.com PATIENT BUILDERS: Katz Suit Underway in California Northern Dist. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against Patient Builders, Inc. is underway. The case is captioned as Jeffrey Katz individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Patient Builders, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-04339-SK (N.D. Cal., July 29, 2019). The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sallie Kim. An ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options was lodged on the Court docket on October 8.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Todd Michael Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com PAYAM INC: Denied Workers Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay, Says Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Hevelio Reyes Espinoza, on behalf of himself, and other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Payam, Inc., Pejman Toobian and John Does 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-8492, (S.D. N.Y., September 12, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, unpaid "spread of hours" pay and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate as "Colbeh Restauarant," a Glatt kosher Mediterranean restaurant located at 32 West 39th Street, New York, NY 10018 where Espinoza worked as a dishwasher, general helper, kitchen preparation assistant, cleaner and cook. He generally works over 40 hours per week without the appropriate overtime premium, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 10 Grand Central 155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 Email: pcooper@jcpclaw.com PERDUE FARMS: Earnest Suit Asserts Sherman Act Breach ----------------------------------------------------- Emily Earnest, individually and on behalf of a class of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Perdue Farms, Inc., Perdue Foods LLC, Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc., The Hillshire Brands Company, Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., Tyson Processing Services, Inc., Tyson Refrigerated Processed Meats, Inc., Keystone Foods, LLC, Equity Group Eufaula Division LLC, Equity Group—Georgia Division LLC, Equity Group Kentucky Division LLC, Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation of West Virginia, Inc., Sanderson Farms, Inc., Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Foods Division), Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Processing Division), Koch Foods, Inc., JCG Foods of Alabama LLC, JCG Foods of Georgia LLC, JCG Industries, Inc., Koch Foods LLC, Koch Foods of Alabama LLC, Koch Foods of Ashland LLC, Koch Foods of Gadsden LLC, Koch Foods of Cumming LLC, Koch Foods of Gainesville LLC, Koch Foods of Mississippi LLC, Wayne Farms, LLC, WFSP Foods, LLC, Mountaire Farms, Inc., Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc., Peco Foods Inc., Simmons Foods, Inc., Simmons Prepared Foods, Inc., Fieldale Farms Corporation, George’s, Inc., Ozark Mountain Poultry, Inc., George’s Chicken, LLC, George’s Foods, LLC, George’s Processing, Inc., House of Raeford Farms, Inc., House of Raeford Farms of Louisiana, LLC, O.K. Foods, Inc., Harrison Poultry, Inc., Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc., Mar-Jac Poultry MS, LLC, Mar-Jac Poultry AL, LLC, Mar-Jac Poultry, LLC, Mar-Jac Holdings, Inc., Amick Farms, LLC, Case Foods, Inc., Case Farms Processing, Inc., Allen Harim Foods, LLC, Agri Stats, Inc., and Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02680 (D. Md., September 12, 2019), seeks redress for Defendants' attempts to fix and depress wages and benefits unreasonably restraining trade in violation of the Sherman Act. Defendants own and operate approximately 180 chicken processing plants in the continental United States and employ workers involved in processing live chicken, including slaughtering birds and preparing the poultry for sale to retailers and consumers. Earnest alleges that the Defendants conspired to unreasonably restrain competition for all persons employed by Defendants as non-supervisory production and maintenance workers at their chicken processing plants, in effect depressing wages and benefits paid to its employees. Earnest was employed as a deboner at a chicken processing plant operated by Pilgrim's Pride Corporation in Russellville, Alabama. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Mark Sandler, Esq. Eric Harlan, Esq. SHAPIRO SHER GUINOT & SANDLER 250 West Pratt Street, Suite 2000 Baltimore, MD 21201 Tel.: (410) 385-0202 Fax: (410) 539-7611 Email: pms@shapirosher.com erh@shapirosher.com - and - Hollis Salzman, Esq. Kellie Lerner, Esq. Noni J. Nelson, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600 New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 980-7400 Fax: (212) 980-7499 Email: hsalzman@robinskaplan.com klerner@robinskaplan.com nnelson@robinskaplan.com - and - M. Stephen Dampier, Esq. THE DAMPIER LAW FIRM, P.C. 55 North Section Street Fairhope, AL 36532 Tel: (251) 929-0900 Fax: (251) 929-0800 Email: stevedampier@dampierlaw.com PFFA ACQUISITION: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PFFA Acquisition, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PFFA Acquisition, LLC doing business as: PFF, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05658 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 7, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pffa Acquisition, LLC is a privately held company in Cincinnati, OH.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com PINNACLE FOOD: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Korte Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ARRON KORTE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PINNACLE FOOD GROUPS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-199-SMY-MAB (S.D. Ill.), Judge Staci M. Yandle of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (i) denied without prejudice the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ii) denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class, and (iii) denied as moot the Defendant's Motion to Strike Allegations in the Complaint Regarding the Proposed Missouri Class for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. Korte, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, filed a three-count class action complaint against Pinnacle, asserting violations of Illinois' Consumer Fraud Act ("ICFA"), and Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"), with respect to the sale of Wish-Bone branded salad dressing labeled "E.V.O.O. - Dressing Made with Extra Virgin Olive Oil." Pinnacle developed, produced, marketed, and sold salad dressings under the Wish-Bone label. In January 2016, it launched a new type of salad dressing that contained extra virgin olive oil ("EVOO") in five different flavors including Caesar Vinaigrette. The label on the front of the dressing bottle states: "Wish-Bone E.V.O.O. Dressing made with Extra Virgin Olive Oil Caesar Vinaigrette with flavors of Parmesan & Romano Cheese, Garlic, & Cracked Black Pepper." The words "made with" are in a comparatively smaller font and written vertically. According to Kristen Thompson, Marketing Director for Pinnacle, the label was changed in June 2017 to indicate that the dressing was "Made With Extra Virgin Olive Oil Based Blend of Oils." By December 2017, dressings with the original label no longer appeared on store shelves. In January 2018, Pinnacle changed the shape and volume of the bottle from a 12-ounce cylindrical glass container to a 15-ounce "paddle-shaped" glass container. In the Fall of 2016, Korte purchased a bottle of Wish-Bone's EVOO Caesar Vinaigrette from a Schnucks Supermarket in Belleville, Illinois. At the time of purchase, based on the information on the front label, he believed the dressing contained EVOO, seasonings, and vinegar, but not any other oils or water. Not until he used the dressing and looked at the back label did he realize the dressing contained soybean oil and water. Korte doesn't recall how much he paid for the dressing or whether it was on sale. It was the only Wish-Bone branded dressing he ever purchased. Korte doesn't know anyone personally who has a similar opinion about the salad dressing's label. He has known Class Counsel Sean Cronin since high school and Cronin has been his friend and "legal counsel for many years." Korte moves for class certification under Rules 23(a), 23(b)((2), and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and seeks certification of the class of all persons who purchased the Products in the state of Illinois or Missouri during the period of Feb. 4, 2016, to present. Korte, who is a Missouri citizen, is the sole representative of the class. Judge Yandle explains that Rule 23(b)(3) permits class certification only if the questions of law or fact common to the class members 'predominate' over questions that are individual to members of the class. Rule 23(b)(3) requirements are "far more demanding" than the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a). Because Korte has failed to demonstrate typicality, he obviously cannot meet Rule 23(b)(3)'s more rigorous standard. For these foregoing reasons, the Judge denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class. In light of this conclusion, he denied as moot Pinnacle's Motion to Strike. The Judge now turns to the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. In the case, the parties and the Scheduling Order anticipated that class discovery would be completed and class certification decided prior to the commencement of merits discovery. In his response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Korte outlines in detail Pinnacle's objections to merits discovery based on the Court's Order and Local Rule 23.1(a)'s requirement that "priority will be given to discovery on class certification issues." Therefore, the Judge holds that Pinnacle's Motion for Summary Judgment is premature and denied it without prejudice. The matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for entry of a supplemental Scheduling and Discovery Order, including a timeline for merits discovery and a dispositive motion deadline. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 11, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/aSKK8D from Leagle.com. Arron Korte, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian T. Kreisler -- briankreisler@wwkinsurance.com -- Kreisler Law Firm, LLC, George Volney Granade, II, Reese LLP, Michael R. Reese, Reese Richman LLP & Sean K. Cronin, Donovan Rose Nester PC. Pinnacle Foods Group LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglas B. Maddock, Jr. -- dmaddock@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy et al., pro hac vice & James P. Muehlberger -- jmuehlberger@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy et al., pro hac vice. PROPETRO HOLDING: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Nov. 15 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming November 15, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased ProPetro Holding Corp. ("ProPetro" or the "Company") (NYSE: PUMP) securities: a) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's March 2017 initial public offering ("IPO or the "Offering"); and/or b) between March 17, 2017 and August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors suffering losses on their ProPetro investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. In March 2017, the Company completed its initial public offering, in which it sold 25 million shares of common stock at $14.00 per share. On August 8, 2019, after the market closed, the Company issued a press release delaying its second quarter earnings conference call and quarterly report, citing an ongoing review by its audit committee. In a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on the same day, the Company stated that the review concerned, among other things, expense reimbursements and certain transactions involving related parties or potential conflicts of interest. The Form 8-K also stated that approximately $370,000 had been improperly reimbursed to members of senior management since the IPO. Moreover, the Company expected to report a material weakness in its internal control over disclosure. On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.59 per share, or over 26%, to close at $12.75 per share on August 9, 2019, thereby injuring investors. By the commencement of this action, ProPetro stock was trading as low as $11.44 per share, a nearly 18% decline from the $14 per share IPO price. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's executive officers were improperly reimbursed for certain expenses; (2) that the Company had engaged in certain undisclosed transactions with related parties; (3) that the Company lacked adequate disclosure controls and procedures; (4) that the Company lacked effective internal control over financial reporting; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased shares of ProPetro pursuant to the Registration Statement and/or during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than November 15, 2019 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact: Howard G. Smith, Esquire, Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Toll-free: (888) 638-4847 E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/[GN] PROPETRO HOLDING: Nov. 15 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ----------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Meredith Corporation (MDP) Class Period: 5/10/2018-9/4/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 5, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-mdp ProPetro Holding Corp. (PUMP) Class Period: 3/17/2017 - 8/8/2019 or purchase of securities issued either in or after the March 2017 Initial Public Offering. Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 15, 2019 SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-pump If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About ClaimsFiler ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN] PURDUE PHARMA: NL Joins British Columbia's Opioid Suit ------------------------------------------------------ VOCM Local News reports that Newfoundland and Labrador in Canada has joined British Columbia's class action against opioid manufacturers and wholesalers. Justice Minister Andrew Parsons says they have been monitoring the various recent developments in the United States. This includes the recently-reported $3-billion "tentative agreement" that would propose to resolve the claims against Purdue entities and Sackler family members. British Columbia's lawsuit, of which Newfoundland and Labrador is a part, aims to recover government health care and other direct costs incurred due to opioid-related disease, injury or illness. Parsons says NL is ready and willing to participate in the effort to achieve "global" resolution, but if they are not included in the process, government will go after Purdue and members of the Sackler family to the fullest extent permitted by law. [GN] RICHEMONT NA: Zhang Sues Over Denied OT Pay, Breaks, Reimbursements ------------------------------------------------------------------- Faye Zhang, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Richemont North America, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV32396 (Cal. Super., September 12, 2019), seeks redress for Defendant's failure to provide meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages, overtime, complete and accurate wage/leave statements, waiting time penalties for unpaid wages due upon termination and in violation of the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, including declaratory relief, damages, penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees resulting from violations of Wage Orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission. Zhang worked for Richemont as a sales associate from July 2015 to February 2019. She claims to have been misclassified as non-exempt from overtime, often working more than 8 hours in a workday and more than 40 hours in a workweek without being paid for all hours worked (including minimum wage, straight time, and overtime wages). [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Bobby Saadian, Esq. Thiago Coelho, Esq. Justin F. Marquez, Esq. Nicol E. Hajjar, Esq. Robert Dart, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email info@wilshirelawfirm.com thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com RDart@wilshirelawfirm.com nicol@wilshirelawfirm.com justin@wilshirelawfirm.com SEIU PENNSYLVANIA: Court Dismisses LaSpina 2nd Amended Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, BETHANY LASPINA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SEIU PENNSYLVANIA STATE COUNCIL, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-2018 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Malachy E. Mannion of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted the State Council's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended complaint ("SAC"). The Plaintiff claims that she was unconstitutionally required to pay union dues. In Counts 1, 2 and 3 of her SAC, she raises federal claims against all the Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. In particular, the Plaintiff alleges that her First Amendment rights were violated when Local 668 continued to take dues from her paycheck after she resigned her membership in the union, based on the Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 decision, and after she told her employer (i.e., Scranton Public Library) to halt the payroll deduction of union-related fees. With respect to the union Defendants other than Local 668, the Plaintiff alleges that they enforced unconstitutional agency shops before the Supreme Court's ruling in Janus and violated the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff class members by tapping their paychecks against their will. Further, the Plaintiff seeks relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, requesting a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendants from accepting dues or fees unless the employees have given their consent to join the unions. She also raises state law claims against all the Defendants for conversion, trespass to chattels, replevin, restitution, and unjust enrichment. In addition to the State Council, the remaining Defendants in the case are Local 668, Lackawanna County Public Library System, and Scranton Public Library. The Plaintiff alleges that State Council coordinates and unifies the collective political, administrative, and communication structures of all SEIU locals and districts throughout Pennsylvania. She also alleges that the other four union Defendants were "affiliated with" State Council. Additionally, she purports to bring claims on behalf of public employee members and former members of the Defendant union affiliates of State Council alleging that they were unconstitutionally required to pay union dues and fair share fees. She seeks to raise First Amendment claims and state law claims on behalf of public employees who were allegedly forced to pay dues and fair share fees to the defendant union affiliates of State Council. The Plaintiff further purports to bring claims on behalf of all employees in bargaining units represented by affiliates of State Council who were subjected to union-related payroll deductions to which they did not knowingly consent. As relief, the Plaintiff seeks (i) a refund of all of the dues she paid to Local 668; (ii) to require the Defendant unions to refund all dues and fees they received from her; (ii) punitive damages for herself and for members of all the Defendant unions who resigned from the unions or requested that the unions stop taking dues or fees after the Janus decision and who continued to have dues or fees withdrawn from their pay; and (iii) injunctive relief on her own behalf and behalf of class members who were subjected to union-related payroll deductions without their consent, and she requests the court to enjoin the State Council and its affiliates from taking money from any public employee until the union obtains a freely given and fully informed waiver of the employee's constitutional rights under Janus. The Plaintiff is proceeding on her SAC filed Jan. 28, 2019. On Jan. 14, 2019, the State Council filed its original motion to dismiss. Pending before the Court is the State Council's motion to dismiss the SAC for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) since she was not a member of the union and, for failure to have Article III standing to pursue class action claims on behalf of members and former members of the union pursuant to 12(b)(1). The State Council also contends that its affiliation with the union Defendant to which she paid fees is not sufficient to confer on the Plaintiff standing to sue it or to state a claim against it. Judge Mannion finds that the Plaintiff has not alleged any facts to show that State Council controlled, was involved in, or had knowledge of the alleged unlawful activities of the Local Union 668, nor does the Plaintiff allege that State Council controlled, authorized or ratified the alleged improper conduct of Local 668. Thus, the Plaintiff has failed to plausibly state that there was an agency relationship between State Council and Local 668. The Judge does not find the Plaintiff's reliance on the State Council's website persuasive. Clearly, since the constitutional provision which the Third Circuit considered in Brenner v. Local 514, was not sufficient to impose liability on the parent union for the alleged wrongful conduct of the local union, the broader language in the State Council's website does not show, under the principles of common law agency, that it participated in, ratified, encouraged, or affirmed any alleged wrongful conduct of Local 668. As such, the State Council's motion to dismiss will be granted. The Plaintiff's federal claims against the State Council will be dismissed with prejudice since the Plaintiff has already filed three complaints and, it would be futile and unduly prejudicial to State Council to allow her to file a fourth pleading against it. Finally, considering judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the litigants, the district court in its discretion is permitted to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the court has dismissed all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Since the Plaintiff's federal claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction will not be permitted to proceed to trial against State Council, the Judge, in his discretion, declines to exercise the Court's supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's state law claims against the union Defendants. Additionally, since the Plaintiff lacks standing to assert federal claims against the State Council, the absence of federal jurisdiction over her federal claims deprives the Court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims against the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff's state law claims against State the Council will be dismissed without prejudice. Against this backdrop, Judge Mannion granted the State Council's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's SAC, with respect to her federal claims against it. He accordingly dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's federal claims against the State Council. He also dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's state laws claims against the State Council. An appropriate order will issue. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 11, 2019 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/gWXM8y from Leagle.com. Bethany LaSpina, on behalf of herself and all othr similarly siutated, Plaintiff, represented by Edmond R. Shinn -- eshinn@erslawfirm.com -- Law Offices of Edmond R. Shinn, Esq., Ltd., Jonathan F. Mitchell -- stephen@mitchellatlaw.com -- Mitchell Law PLLC, Shannon W. Conway -- sconway@talcottfranklin.com -- Talcott Franklin P.C., Talcott J. Franklin -- tal@talcottfranklin.com -- Talcott Franklin P.C. & Walter S. Zimolong, Zimolong LLC. SEIU Pennsylvania State Council, Defendant, represented by Martin W. Milz -- mmilz@spearwilderman.com -- SPEAR WILDERMAN, P.C. & Samuel L. Spear, Spear, Wilderman, Borish, Endy, Spear & Runckel. SEIU Local 668, Defendant, represented by Lauren M. Hoye -- lhoye@wwdlaw.com -- Willig, Williams & Davidson, P. Casey Pitts -- cpitts@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP & Scott A. Kronland -- skronland@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP. Lackawanna County Public Library System, Defendant, pro se. Scranton Public Library, Defendant, represented by J. Timothy Hinton, Haggerty Hiinton & Cosgrove LLP. SHAFER PROJECT: Lewis Seeks Overtime Pay for Coating Inspectors --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SHAFER PROJECT RESOURCES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00183-DLH-CRH (D. N.Dak., Sept. 3, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Shafer Project Resources, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Shafer employs workers, like Lewis, to carry out its work. Lewis, and the other workers like him, were typically scheduled for 10-12 hour shifts, 6-7 days a week. From approximately November 2017 until July 2019, Lewis worked for Defendant as a Pipeline and Coating Inspector. But Shafer does not pay all of these workers overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Defendant pays these workers a day-rate, the lawsuit says. Shafer is an energy services support company specializing in providing project managers, designers, inspectors, safety consultants and administrative personnel to the energy industry. Shafer operates throughout the United States.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: William R. Liles, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. William R. Liles, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com wliles@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Pawar Law Files Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Pawar Law Group announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares Slack Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: WORK) from pursuant or traceable to the June 2019 IPO, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Slack Technologies, Inc. investors under the federal securities laws. To join the class action, go http://pawarlawgroup.com/cases/slack-technologies-inc/or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that(1) that the Company's Slack Platform was susceptible to recurring service-level disruptions; (2) that such disruptions were increasingly likely to occur as the Company scaled its services to a larger user base; (3) that the Company provides credits even if a customer was not specifically affected by service-level disruptions; (4) that, as a result, any service-level disruptions would have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial results; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 18, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff. Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Contact: Vik Pawar, Esq. Pawar Law Group 20 Vesey Street, Suite 1210 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (917) 261-2277 Fax: (212) 571-0938 Email: info@pawarlawgroup.com, vik@pawarlawgroup.com [GN] SUNDIAL GROWERS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, announces that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Sundial Growers Inc. (NASDAQ: SNDL) resulting from allegations that Sundial issued materially misleading information to the investing public. If you purchased Sundial securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Sundial Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. On August 1, 2019, Sundial closed its initial public offering ("IPO"), in which it sold 11 million shares at $13.00 per share for gross proceeds of $143 million. In the Registration Statement for the IPO, Sundial represented to shareholders that it produces "high-quality, consistent cannabis." The Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Sundial failed to supply saleable cannabis in line with contractual obligations to Zenabis Global Inc.; (2) due to material quality issues, Zenabis had to return or reject a total of 554 kg of cannabis to Sundial, valued at approximately U.S. $1.9 million (C$2.5 million); and (3) as a result, defendants statements about Sundials business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Just eighteen days later, on August 19, 2019, MarketWatch reported that Zenabis Global Inc., a cannabis producer, had rejected a shipment of 554 kg of cannabis from Sundial "because it contained visible mold, parts of rubber gloves and other non-cannabis material, according to people familiar with the matter." Since the IPO Sundial's stock price has fallen substantially below its IPO price, damaging investors. If you purchased Sundial securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/sundialgrowersinc-sndl-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-178/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 25, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact: Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP Website: http://www.bernlieb.com Tel: (877) 779-1414 Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] SUNDIAL GROWERS: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all investors that purchased Sundial Growers, Inc. (NASDAQ: SNDL) securities pursuant to and/or traceable to the company's August 1, 2019 initial public offering ("IPO"). Investors have until November 25, 2019 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On August 1, 2019, Sundial closed its initial public offering ("IPO"), in which it sold 11 million shares at $13.00 per share, yielding $143 million in proceeds. In the Registration Statement for the IPO, the company stated that it produces "high-quality, consistent cannabis." On August 14, 2019, cannabis producer Zenabis Global Inc. revealed that "[c]ertain third-party producers failed to supply saleable cannabis in line with contractual obligations. Due to quality issues, Zenabis had to return or reject a total of 554 kg of cannabis from a third-party." On August 19, 2019, MarketWatch published an article stating that Sundial had sold the cannabis to Zenabis. The article also stated that the cannabis was returned "because it contained visible mold, parts of rubber gloves and other non-cannabis material, according to people familiar with the matter." On this same day, the company confirmed that it was resolving an "isolated immaterial matter between Sundial and [a] Licensed Producer." The complaint, filed on September 25, 2019, alleges that in the IPO and afterwards defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Sundial failed to supply saleable cannabis in line with contractual obligations to Zenabis Global Inc.; (2) due to material quality issues, Zenabis had to return or reject a total of 554 kg of cannabis to Sundial, valued at approximately U.S. $1.9 million (C$2.5 million); and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about Sundial's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Sundial's stock is currently trading at $4.45 per share, a 65% decrease from the $13.00 IPO price. If you purchased Sundial securities during the pursuant to the IPO, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For additional information concerning the Sundial lawsuit, please go to https://bespc.com/sndl. For additional information about Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. please go to www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] SUNDIAL GROWERS: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Sundial Growers Inc. (NASDAQ: SNDL) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with Sundial's August 1, 2019 initial public stock offering (the "IPO" or the "Offering"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Sundial investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Sundial class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1669.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) Sundial failed to supply saleable cannabis in line with contractual obligations to Zenabis Global Inc.; (2) due to material quality issues, Zenabis had to return or reject a total of 554 kg of cannabis to Sundial, valued at approximately U.S. $1.9 million (C$2.5 million); and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about Sundial's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis 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 November 25, 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-1669.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com, pkim@rosenlegal.com, cases@rosenlegal.com Website: www.rosenlegal.com [GN] SURFACE ONCOLOGY: Ang Says IPO Registration Statement Misleading ---------------------------------------------------------------- GINO ANG, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SURFACE ONCOLOGY, INC., J. JEFFERY GOATER, DANIEL S. LYNCH, DAVID S. GRAYZEL, ARMEN B. SHANAFELT, GEOFFREY MCDONOUGH, ELLIOTT SIGAL, LAURIE D. STELZER, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, and EVERCORE GROUP L.L.C., the Defendants, Case No. 655304/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Sept. 13, 2019), is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Surface common stock in and/or traceable to the Company's April 19, 2018 initial public stock offering. Before drugs can be sold to the American public, they must go through a long and expensive testing process and eventually submit the results of these tests in an application for approval to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. At the time of its IPO, the Company's "lead product candidate," the drug furthest along in the testing process, was SRF231. SRF231 inhibits CD47, a protein that is often overexpressed in tumor cells. IPO documents show Surface had completed toxicology studies of SRF231 and had significantly progressed through Phase 1 testing, which had begun in February 2018, at the time of the IPO. One of the key purposes of the IPO was to raise enough money "to advance SRF231 through [the rest of the] initial Phase 1 clinical trial results." Pursuant to the Registration Statement, the Company sold 7.2 million ordinary shares to the public. The Company raised roughly $108 million in the IPO. The Registration Statement, however, was negligently prepared, and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein, both under governing regulations and in order to make the statements contained therein not misleading. The Registration Statement stated that SRF231 had shown no hematologic toxicities and, in particular, no signs of hemagglutination. These statements, however, were materially false and misleading because at the time of the IPO, defendants had access to preclinical and Phase 1 data that showed SRF231 caused hematologic toxicities at low doses, which made continued testing at the Company's planned amounts likely to lead to unsafe toxicology levels. The Registration Statement purported to warn about certain risks, including safety risks that "could" arise in the future that "may" impact the Company's business and financial results. These statements, however, were themselves materially misleading because they failed to disclose that hematological toxicities had already been observed with respect to SRF231 in preclinical and clinical data. The Defendants were required to disclose this material information in the Registration Statement. First, the statements in the Registration Statement regarding the Company's preclinical trials and ongoing Phase 1 trial for SRF231 were materially misleading because of defendants' failure to disclose observed hematological toxicities while misrepresenting observed safety data. Second, SEC Regulation S-K, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 229.303 ("Item 303"), required disclosure of any known events or uncertainties that at the time of the IPO had impacted or were reasonably likely to materially impact Surface's future operating results and prospects. The undisclosed, materially negative data was likely to (and in fact did) materially and adversely affect Surface's results and prospects and therefore were required to be disclosed in the Registration Statement but were not. Lastly, SEC Regulation S-K, 17 C.F.R. section 229.105, required, in the "Risk Factors" section of the Registration Statement, a discussion of the most significant factors that made the IPO risky or speculative and that each risk factor adequately describe the risk. While the Registration Statement's discussion of risk factors did include the potential that the Company's drugs could cause toxicities or side effects, these purported warnings were themselves materially misleading because they failed to disclose that toxicities regarding SRF231 had already been observed in clinical data and the consequent materially adverse effects of this undisclosed data on the Company's future results, share price, and prospects. In addition, observed adverse toxicities from the Company's lead product candidate were among the most significant factors making an investment in Surface speculative and risky, and thus these risks were required to be adequately disclosed in the Registration Statement. On December 18, 2018, the Company announced that it was making a "significant reduction of investment in and scope of its SRF231 program." Surface explained that it observed "two hematologic dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) at a lower dose (12 mg/kg) than anticipated." The stock of Surface sold in the IPO now trades for around $2 per share, $13 below its IPO price of $15 per share. As a result, investors have suffered tens of millions of dollars in losses, the lawsuit says. Surface is a clinical-stage immuno-oncology company that engages in the development of cancer therapies. The Company has no products for sale and will not have any for the near term. Instead, the little revenue Surface receives comes from its drug development partners as its drugs reach certain development milestones.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: 631/367-7100 Facsimile: 631/367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and - Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Stephen J. Oddo, Esq. Jonathan D. Bobak, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 5040 Shoreham Place San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: 619 525-3990 Facsimile: 619/525-3991 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com soddo@robbinsarroyo.com jbobak@robbinsarroyo.com TALAMO FOOD: Rivera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------- Porfirio Rivera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TALAMO FOOD SERICE, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19CV355856 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., Sept. 30, 2019) is a class action pursuant to Section 382 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. The complaint alleges that the Defendants have a policy or practice of failing to compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees in the State of California with overtime wages. The Defendant required employees to work more than 8 hours per workday, 12 hours per workday, 40 hours per workweek, and 7 straight workdays without properly being paid overtime wages, says the complaint. The Defendants also failed to accurately track and/or pay for all hours worked, and manipulated time entries to the detriment of Plaintiff and other similarly situated. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee from approximately June 2017 through October of 2018. Talamo is a company that specializes in importing, distributing, and processing cheeses for food service retailers and commercial businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Diego Aviles, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310)300-1705 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com diego@tomorrowlaw.com TAQUERIAS EL FAROLITO: Romero's Overtime Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------ Taquerias El Farolito, Inc. is defending against a class action lawsuit over employee compensation. The case is captioned, MIRNA ROMERO and MARIANA ACEVEDO, as individuals and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. TAQUERIAS EL FAROLITO, INC. dba as Taquerias El Farolito, El Farolito Bar, El Farolito, Taquerias El Favorito, Las Brisas and Mission Kitchen, and DOES 1-20, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-577957 (Cal. Super., July 26, 2019), and alleges that Defendants failed to pay minimum wage, failed to pay overtime compensation, failed to provide meal period compensation, failed to provide rest period compensation, and failed to indemnify necessary business expenditures under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiffs are current and former hourly or non-exempt employees of Taquerias El Farolito, Inc. who worked in the State of California at any time from 4 years preceding the date of filing of the action.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Arlo Garcia Uriarte, Esq. Un Kei Wu, Esq. LIBERATION LAW GROUP, P.C: 2760 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 695-1000 Facsimile: (415) 695-1006 TEESPRING INC: Traynor Suit Underway in New York Southern District ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit against Teespring, Inc., remains pending. The case is captioned as Yaseen Traynor also known as: Yaseen Traylor on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Teespring, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06942-JPO (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2019). The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is Assigned to the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken. Teespring is a platform for custom merchandise. The company was founded by Walker Williams and Evan Stites-Clayton in 2011 in Providence, Rhode Island. Teespring's platform aims to make selling custom T-shirts easier.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com TELEBRANDS CORP: Illegally Charged Monthly Fees, Rosenbloom Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA ROSENBLOOM, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TELEBRANDS CORP., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-17872 (D.N.J., Sept. 11, 2019), contends that individuals nationwide are being improperly charged monthly fees for purported services by a New Jersey corporation for which they did not enroll. In April 2018, Rosenbloom called Telebrands to purchase a "Hurricane Spin Scrubber," she had seen advertised on television. Rosenbloom provided the Telebrands representative her credit card information by telephone to purchase the "Hurricane Spin Scrubber" in April 2018. Rosenbloom did not agree Telebrands could place charges on her credit card account for any additional products or services. According to the complaint, Rosenbloom did not request to become part of the Telebrands "Everyday Savings" program nor did she authorize Defendant to enroll her in that program. Rosenbloom did not agree that Telebrands could charge her credit card account for any amounts for enrollment in the "Everyday Savings" program. Telebrands, however, charged additional amounts to Rosenbloom’s credit card for its "Everyday Savings" program. Specifically, Telebrands charged Rosenbloom an additional $1.00 on April 17, 2019, $14.99 on June 10, 2019 and $14.99 on July 8, 2019, the lawsuit says. Telebrands describes itself as "the oldest existing direct response marketing company and the original creator of the 'As Seen on TV' logo and category of trade." Telebrands also provides a service it refers to as its "Everyday Savings" program. Telebrands describes the "Everyday Savings" program as a "premier savings club that makes it easy to find great deals on the things you love. Everyday Savings club members receive instant access to over 200,000 money-saving deals including Restaurant Discounts, Shopping Discounts, Entertainment Discounts, Travel Discounts, and Automotive Discounts.".[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Peter S. Pearlman, Esq. COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP Park 80 West – Plaza One 250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401 Saddle Brook, NJ 07663 Telephone: (201) 845-9600 Facsimile: (201) 845-9423 E-mail: psp@njlawfirm.com - and - David T. Butsch, Esq. Christopher E. Roberts, Esq. BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC 231 S. Bemiston, Suite 260 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 863-5700 Facsimile: (314) 863-5711 E-mail: dbutsch@butschroberts.com croberts@butschroberts.com TENCENT MUSIC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Tencent Music Entertainment Group (NYSE: TME) between December 12, 2018 and August 26, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Tencent securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Tencent Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Tencent's exclusive licensing arrangements with major record labels were anticompetitive; (2) consequently, sublicensing such content from Tencent was unreasonably expensive, in violation of Chinese antimonopoly laws; (3) these anticompetitive efforts were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. On August 27, 2019, Bloomberg reported that China's antitrust authority, the State Administration of Market Regulation, was investigating the exclusive licensing deals between Tencent and major record labels including Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group. On this news, Tencent American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") fell $0.92 per share or 6.8% to close at $12.57 per share on August 27, 2019. If you purchased Tencent securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/tencentmusicentertainmentgroup-tme-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-189/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 25, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact: Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP Website: https://www.bernlieb.com Tel: (877) 779-1414 Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] TENCENT MUSIC: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Tencent Music Entertainment Group (NYSE: TME) from December 12, 2018 through August 26, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Tencent Music investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Tencent Music class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1672.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) Tencent Music's exclusive licensing arrangements with major record labels were anticompetitive; (2) consequently, sublicensing such content from Tencent Music was unreasonably expensive, in violation of Chinese antimonopoly laws; (3) these anticompetitive efforts were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. 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 November 25, 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-1672.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com Website: www.rosenlegal.com [GN] UNITED STATES: Oct. 18 Conference on 2016 Election-Related Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- PETER APPEL AND SALLY JANE GELLERT (AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS), the Petitioners, vs. THE UNITED STATES, AND DONALD J. TRUMP AS PRESIDENT AND MIKE PENCE AS VICE PRESIDENT, the Respondents, and HILLARY CLINTON AND TIM KAINE, Interested Persons, Case No. 19-338 (U.S.), is an appeal filed in the Supreme Court of United States on Sept. 13, 2019. The Petitioners have filed petition for a writ of mandamus. According to their Petition, the Appel et al. assert legal standing to request leave for direct review from the congressional certification (1a-29a) that directly caused their disenfranchisement in the "blue" state of New Jersey and the "red" state of Pennsylvania (24a-26a). The Petitioners contend that the current president was elected by a minority of the nationwide voters because Congress certified only the tally of the electors, in contravention of prior judicial precedents and the import of the suffrage amendments. The Petitioners request exceptional leave for extraordinary review from the congressional certification as a judicial order that discarded their votes ultra vires. The Questions presented to the Supreme Court are: 1. Whether the Supreme Court has the "other jurisdiction" (pursuant to Rule 20 of Part 4 of the Supreme Court rules) to grant the within petition for an appeal writ of mandamus, pursuant to the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. sec. 1651(a)), in order to review the declaration of constitutional law by the Congress, dated January 6, 2017, that had declared the electoral tally as legally decisive of the 2016 presidential election. 2. Whether the petitioners have standing to appeal from the congressional certification when their votes for the Democratic ticket were discarded in the "red" state of Pennsylvania and in the "blue" state of New Jersey. 3. Whether voter injury may be legally presumed when the petitioners' disenfranchisement directly resulted from the electoral certification by Congress. 4. Whether the electoral provisions of the Constitution before the Civil War have been implicitly superseded by the 24th and the 26th amendments. 5. Whether the electoral provisions of Title 3 remain valid and effective. 6. Whether the Congress had any subject matter jurisdiction to render the electoral certification sought to be reviewed. 7. Whether the 2016 and/or 2020 presidential elections are justiciable and capable of repetition while evading timely review. 8. Whether the doctrine of in pari materia applies to Title 28 (including sec. 1651(a) & 1291 & 2201(a)) to permit direct review of the certification under Rule 20. 9. Whether the Supreme Court has legally declared that the electoral college is historically obsolete such that the certification violated the doctrine of stare decisis. The case is on behalf of other similarly situated persons include other adult citizens who also voted for the interested candidates (Hillary Clinton for president and Tim Kaine for vice president) in their respective "blue" and "red" states (24a-26a). The U.S. government has waived its right to respond. The matter is set for conference for Oct. 18.[BN] The Petitioners are represented by: William D. Russiello, Esq. 45 Essex Street, Suite 3 West Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 342-0696 E-mail: wrussiello@cs.com VALARIS PLC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Oct. 21 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming October 21, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of Valaris plc ("Valaris" or the "Company") (NYSE: VAL) investors who purchased securities between April 11, 2019 and July 31, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. On April 11, 2019, Ensco plc and Rowan Companies plc combined to form Ensco Rowan plc, which was later renamed Valaris plc. On July 31, 2019, the Company announced its second quarter 2019 financial results, its first earnings report since the merger, which missed market expectations. As noted by Seeking Alpha in an article published on August 2, 2019, Valaris' results "shock[ed] investors with massive cash usage [and] . . . surprisingly weak outlook for the ultra-deepwater segment with further dayrate recovery likely delayed until at least the second half of next year." On this news, Valaris' stock price fell $1.50, or over 18%, to close at $6.77 on August 1, 2019, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Valaris was plagued by a weak ultra-deepwater segment, massive cash usage, and significant negative cash flow; (2) that the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on Valaris' second quarter 2019 results; (3) that the merger leading to Valaris' establishment could not deliver on its touted benefits; and (4) that as a result, Valaris' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Valaris plc securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than October 21, 2019 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. Contact: Lesley Portnoy, Esq. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 Website: www.glancylaw.com Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com, LPORTNOY@GLANCYLAW.COM [GN] VIEWRAY INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Nov. 12 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming November 12, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of ViewRay, Inc. ("ViewRay" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VRAY) investors who purchased common stock between March 15, 2019 and August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. On August 8, 2019, after the market closed, ViewRay reported a net loss of $30.8 million, or $0.32 per share, for second quarter 2019 and that backlog declined to $219.3 million. On this news, the Company's stock fell $3.64, or 54%, to close at $3.10 per share on August 9, 2019, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that demand for ViewRay systems had declined due in part to changes being made to Medicare reimbursement approaches first announced in November 2019 that could make purchases of new ViewRay systems less profitable for customers; (2) that the Company's reported backlog was overstated due to the inclusion of orders with insufficient surety as to permit for their inclusion in reported backlog; and (3) that as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired ViewRay common stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than November 12, 2019 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. Contact: Lesley Portnoy, Esq. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 Website: www.glancylaw.com E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com LPORTNOY@GLANCYLAW.COM [GN] VIMEO INC: Faces Class Action for Violations of Biometric Law ------------------------------------------------------------- Lin F. Freedman, writing for The National Law Review, reports that Vimeo, Inc. was sued in a class action case alleging that it violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by "collecting, storing and using Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric information…without informed written consent." According to the Complaint, Vimeo "has created, collected and stored, in conjunction with its cloud-based Magisto service, thousands of "face templates" (or "face prints")-highly detailed geometric maps of the face—from thousands of Magisto users." The suit alleges that Vimeo creates these templates using facial recognition technology and "[E]ach face template that Vimeo extracts is unique to a particular individual, in the same way that a fingerprint or voiceprint uniquely identifies one and only one person." The plaintiffs are trying to liken an image captured by facial recognition technology to a fingerprint by calling it a "faceprint." Very creative in the wake of mixed reactions to the use of facial recognition technology in the Facebook and Shutterfly cases. The suit alleges "users of Magisto upload millions of videos and/or photos per day, making videos and photographs a vital part of the Magisto experience . . . . Users can download and connect any mobile device to Magistoto upload and access videos and photos to produce and edit their own videos . . . . Unbeknownst to the average consumer, and in direct violation of . . . BIPA, Plaintiff . . . believes that Magisto's facial recognition technology scans each and every video and photo uploaded to Magisto for faces, extracts geometric data relating to the unique points and contours (i.e., biometric identifiers) of each face, and then uses that data to create and store a template of each face—all without ever informing anyone of this practice." The suit further alleges that when a user uploads a photo, the Magisto service creates a template for each face depicted in the photo, and compares that face with others in its face database to see if there is a match. According to the Complaint, the templates are also able to recognize gender, age and location and are able to collect biometric information from non-users. All of this is done without consent of the individuals, and in alleged violation of BIPA. Although we previously have seen some facial recognition cases alleging violation of BIPA, and there are numerous cases alleging violation of BIPA for collection of fingerprints in the employment setting, this case is a little different from those, and it will be interesting to watch. [GN] WALMART INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Fortney Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID FORTNEY and ELI TRIPLETT individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. WALMART, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-04209-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 21, 2019), alleges that the Defendant regularly, uniformly, and systematically required Walmart Tire & Auto location employees, including the Plaintiffs, to work more than 40 hours in a single workweek, but did not pay them overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Walmart, Inc. is headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas, and maintains a retail outlet in Cambridge, Ohio. Walmart owns and operates over 3,000 store locations in the United States. Many of the Defendant's store locations also offer automotive maintenance and mechanic services. These automotive service locations are known as "Walmart Tire & Auto" locations, "Walmart Tire & Lube Express" locations, and other names.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN 8401 Crawford Ave., Suite 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 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 ***