/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200116.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, January 16, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 12
Headlines
360 MANAGEMENT CO: Langfield Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
3M COMPANY: Certification of Non-Exempt Employee Classes Sought
3M COMPANY: Faces Wilson Suit Over Exposure to Highly Toxic AFFF
5 TELLERS: Liz Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
7FRIDAYS INC: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
ADECCO USA: Lang Suit Over PMMA Violation Removed to M.D. Penn.
ADVANCE AMERICA: Viamontes Discrimination Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
AEROCARE HOME: Certification of Class Customer Service Reps Sought
AGILANT SOLUTIONS: Class in O'Conner Suit Conditionally Certified
AIR CANADA: Final Approval of $100,000 Settlement Sought
AMERICAN BOTTLING: Guzman-Lopez's Bid to Certify Class Denied
AMERICAN HONDA: Wong Sues Over Defective AC System in Civics
AMERICAN INSTITUTE: Jimenez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Au Pairs
ARK RESTAURANTS: Former Tipped Workers' Class Suit Ongoing
AU PAIR CARE: Faces Munoz Suit in Massachusetts Over Unpaid Wages
AURORA CANNABIS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
AURORA CANNABIS: Faces Eaton Suit Over Decline in Share Price
AURORA CANNABIS: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of Class Action
BIG LOTS: Settlement Reached in California Wage & Hour Class Suits
CAREER EDUCATION: Loughman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
CARLOS LOPEZ: Settlement in Steven Suit Denied Approval
CAVALRY LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Van Roeyen Claims
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Continues to Defend Rael Class Action
CHRISTINE M FONTANA: Ramseure Sues Over Improper Overtime Wages
CHRISTOPHER & BANKS: Feb. 13 Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss
CINTAS CORP: Faces Stafford Suit Over Decline of Share Price
DANIEL MARKUS: Fails to Pay Managers' Overtime Wages, Lustig Says
DELI PARTNERS: Fails to Pay Drivers' OT Wages, Triplett Claims
DOMO INC: Named as Defendant in Patton Class Action
DOMO INC: Named as Defendant in Volonte Securities Class Action
ECO SCIENCE: Settlement Discussions Ongoing in Raschke Class Suit
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT: Rosenblatt & Meidenbaur Suits Ongoing
EEB ELECTRIC: Vargas Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
ENERGY TRANSFER: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
ESSA BANCORP: Unit Continues to Defend 2016 Suit over Kickbacks
EXELON CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Feb. 14 Deadline
FASHION MARKETING: Rossano Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
FEDEX CORP: Consolidated Class Action Ongoing in New York
FIREFIGHTERS COMMUNITY: Members Hit Overdraft, Double-charging Fees
FLORIDA: Hall Seeks Certification of Class of FCCC Residents
FORD MOTOR: Faces Marino Suit Over Defect in Auto Transmissions
FREE STATE: Fails to Pay Contractors' Overtime Wage, Johnson Says
GENESCO INC: Settles Indiana & Massachusetts Suits for $1.2MM
GERONIMOS GRILL: Rodriguez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
GREEN DOT: Block & Leviton Files Class Action Lawsuit
GREEN DOT: Gross Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
GRUBHUB INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
HARBOR INN: Faces Ramashka Suit Over Fraudulent Federal Tax Forms
HEWLETT PACKARD: Demurrer in Ross and Rogus Suit Granted in Part
HEXO CORP: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of Class Action
HP INC: Appeal in Jackson Class Action Still Pending
HP INC: Bid to Dismiss Parziale Class Action Pending
HP INC: Forsyth Class Action Remains Stayed
JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Approves Plan of Allocation in Merryman Suit
JUUL LABS: Ledbetter Product Liability Suit Moved to N.D. Alabama
KENCO LOGISTIC: Mintun Biometrics Row Removed to C.D. Ill.
KRONOS INC: Two Claims in Namuwonge Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
LADENBURG THALMANN: Scarantino Challenges Sale to Advisor Group
LEAD GENERATION: Reynoso's Cert. Bid OK'd; April 30 Hearing Set
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend Gathmann-Landini Suit
MARQUEE BROADCASTING: Price Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
MEDLEY CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Lax and Dicristino Suits
MEDLEY CAPITAL: Parties at Odds on Contingent Fee Award
MEDLEY CAPITAL: RICO Suits Ongoing in Virginia & Pennsylvania
MEGATEL HOMES: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Lee Claims
MERIT MEDICAL: Brodsky & Smith Reminds of Feb. 3 Deadline
MERIT MEDICAL: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of Class Action
MIRENESSE COSMETICS: Tillery Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
MOBILE MINI DEALER: Daisy Inc. Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Adverts
MORGAN STANLEY: Briefing Scheds in Harvey & Chen Labor Suits Moved
MYLAN NV: Bronstein Gewirtz Notifes Investors of Class Action
MYLAN NV: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
NORDSON CORP: Continues to Defend Ortiz Class Suit in California
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Continues to Defend Stirling Class Action
ONCOSEC MEDICAL: Alpha Holdings Class Action Ongoing
ORACLE CORP: Awaits Court's Decision on Bid to Dismiss Cal. Suit
PEPPER'S MIAMI: Rodriguez Claims Overtime for Hours Over 40
PETRO RIVER: Appeal in Donelson-Friend Class Suit Still Pending
PINK PONY: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Ligon Alleges
PLITEK LLC: Soyka Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data
PORT AUTHORITY OF NY/NJ: Union Workers Sue Over CBA Violations
PPG INDUSTRIES: Court Enters Final Judgment in Mild Securities Suit
PREMIER FIRE: King Seeks $6,804 in Unpaid Wages and Other Relief
PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Pill Balks at Lantheus Merger Deal
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT: Fails to Properly Pay Cleaners, Gray Says
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action Lawsuit
RIVERSIDE PARTNERS: Rosado Files False Product Labeling Case
ROBERT SILLERMAN: Ct Enters Final Judgment Dismissing Guevoura Suit
SCI COLORADO: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Tarpinian Says
SEAGLE PIZZA: Thompson Seeks Minimum and OT Wages for Drivers
SHANAHAN ENGINEERING: Moore Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA, OMFWSA, OPPA
SHIFTPIXY INC: Continues to Defend Splond Class Action
SIFCO INDUSTRIES: Sees $250,000 Loss in California Class Suit
STARBUCKS CORP: 9th Circuit Flips Dismissal of Naimi Class Action
STRATEGIC HOSPITALITY: Smith Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Servers
TAILORED BRANDS: Continues to Defend Suit vs Twin Hill
UNITED NATURAL: Resolution Reached in North County Store Suit
USAA CASUALTY: Griffy Sues for Breach of Contract
VERU INC: Appeal Period in Schartz Class Suit Already Lapsed
WANDA SPORTS: Gross Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
WAWA INC: Fails to Guard Card Info, Sanders Data Breach Suit Says
WORD ENTERPRISES: Bid to Strike Improper Notices in McFarlin Denied
YUNJI INC: Gross Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
ZUORA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit
*********
360 MANAGEMENT CO: Langfield Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Langfield, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 360 Management Company, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2019CH14896 (Ill. Cir., December 26, 2019),
seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful
activity related to the capture, collection, storage and use of
biometrics, statutory damages together with costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.
360 Management Company operates as Londonhouse Hotel where
Langfield was employed as a steward from May 2016 to August 2017.
She was required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock
that scanned fingerprints and that 360 Management improperly
disclosed employees' fingerprint data without informed consent.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 West Washington, Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312) 419-1008
Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
zflowerree@flsalaw.com
3M COMPANY: Certification of Non-Exempt Employee Classes Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JASON HOLLOWAY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
3M COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00708-JAK (Kkx) (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on Feb. 10, 2020, for an
order:
1. certifying these classes:
Second Meal Break Class:
"all persons employed by Defendant 3M 10 Company as non-
exempt employees at Defendant's facility in Oak Hills,
California, at any time from March 14, 2015 through the date
of certification, who worked at least one shift over 10
hours";
On-Premises Rest Break Class:
"all persons employed by Defendant as non-exempt employees
at Defendant's facility in Oak Hills, California, at any
time from March 14, 2015 through January 31, 2019, who
worked at least one shift over 3.5 hours";
Meal and Rest Break Interruption Class:
"all persons employed by Defendant as non-exempt employees
at Defendant's facility in Oak 20 Hills, California, at any
time from March 14, 2015 through April 30, 2019, who worked
at least on shift over 3.5 hours and received pages during
their meal and/or rest breaks";
Meal and Rest Break Premium Class:
"all persons employed by Defendant as non-exempt employees
in the State of California at any time from March 14, 2015
through the date of certification, who received a meal or
rest break premium and a shift differential and/or overtime
wages during the same pay period";
Daily Overtime Class:
"all persons employed by Defendant as non-exempt employees
at Defendant's facility in Oak Hills, California, at any
time from March 14, 2015 through April 30, 2018, who worked
pursuant to an alternative work schedule and were not paid
daily overtime for work in excess of eight but less than 10
hours";
Off-the-Clock Class:
"all persons employed by Defendant as non-exempt employees
at Defendant's facility in Oak Hills, California, at any
time from March 14, 2015 through the date of certification,
who received calls from their supervisors during non-work
hours and were not compensated for this time"; and
Shift Differential Wage Statement Class:
"all persons employed by Defendant as non-exempt employees
in the State of California at any time from March 14, 2015
through the date of certification, who received shift
differentials";
2. certifying derivative claims for failure to furnish accurate
itemized wage statements and unfair business practices;
3. appointing himself as class representative; and
4. appointing Matthew J. Matern, Launa Adolph, and Kayvon
Sabourian of Matern Law Group, PC, as class counsel.
The 3M Company, formerly known as the Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company, is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
health care, and consumer goods.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated are:
Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
Launa Adolph, Esq.
Kayvon Sabourian, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 531-1900
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
ladolph@maternlawgroup.com
ksabourian@maternlawgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Faces Wilson Suit Over Exposure to Highly Toxic AFFF
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES EDWIN WILSON, JR. v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:19-cv-03455-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 12,
2019), seeks damages for personal injury and for those similarly
situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Wilson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
5 TELLERS: Liz Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Liz and Waly Ferreira, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 5 TELLERS ASSOCIATES, L.P., 5 TELLERS
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND COMPANY, INC., PARKVIEW APARTMENTS, LLC,
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., JOHN VOLANDES, PETER VOLANDES, and
all related entities, Case No. 1:20-cv-00212 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 10,
2020), is brought pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the Fair
Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime wages, minimum
wages, and other wages owed to the Plaintiffs.
The Defendants have applied common employment practices, policies
and procedures to superintendents and maintenance workers of the 5
Tellers Buildings, including the practice of willfully refusing to
compensate these employees for all hours worked beyond the first 40
hours of work per work week, and providing no compensation to
building superintendents' family members, who, with the Defendants'
knowledge, performed extensive work at the 5 Tellers Buildings, the
Plaintiffs allege.
Regardless of the time of day or night and/or day of the week when
such work was needed, superintendents were paid fixed weekly and/or
monthly sums, and they were not paid overtime compensation despite
working substantially more than 40 hours per workweek, in violation
of the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as superintendents
and maintenance workers.
The Defendants were and still are a centrally managed, real estate
enterprise that owns, controls, and manages apartment buildings in
New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marc A. Rapaport, Esq.
RAPAPORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Penn Plaza
250 West 34th Street, Suite 2430
New York, NY 10119
Phone: (212) 382-1600
Email: mrapaport@rapaportlaw.com
- and -
Meredith R. Miller, Esq.
MILLER LAW, PLLC
167 Madison Avenue, Suite 503
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (347) 878-2587
Email: meredith@millerlaw.nyc
7FRIDAYS INC: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 7FRIDAYS, INC. and BETH ROBAK, Case No. 3:20-cv-50010
(N.D. Ill., Jan. 9, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
The Plaintiff says she worked over forty hours in a week in at
least one week she was employed by the Defendant. She alleges that
although she submitted her hours, including the overtime hours to
the Defendant, the Defendant did not include her overtime hours in
her paycheck.
The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff for all hours worked
over 40 in a week, including failing to pay overtime premium of one
and one-half times her regular rate of pay, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a house cleaner
from July 2017 through October 2018.
The Defendants operate a house-cleaning business as a franchise of
The Cleaning Authority.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, announces that a class action lawsuit has
been commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Adamas
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as lead
plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court.
Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ADMS)
ADMS Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 8, 2017 -
September 30, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : February 10, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/adamas-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-form?prid=4994&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Adamas
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) health insurers were
excluding Adamas's primary product, GOCOVRI, from their
prescription formularies or requiring patients to use "step
therapy" - i.e., making patients try immediate-release amantadine
prior to covering GOCOVRI; (2) the rapid increase in physicians
prescribing GOCOVRI during the Class Period was not due to its
efficacy; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial statements about Adamas's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.
Contact:
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
Website: www.zlk.com
Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]
ADECCO USA: Lang Suit Over PMMA Violation Removed to M.D. Penn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Eaton A. Lang IV, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. ADECCO USA, INC., Case No.
2019-cv-7102, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of
Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 9, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-at-06044 to the
proceeding.
In his complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Adecco discriminated
against him by rescinding a conditional offer of employment due to
his status as an individual certified to use medical marijuana. The
action seeks to recover damages for alleged violations of the
Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act, and for alleged wrongful
discharge/wrongful rescission of offer of employment under
Pennsylvania common law.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jessica M. Bocchinfuso, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
1735 Market Street, Suite 3000
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 995-2800
Facsimile: (215) 995-2801
Email: jessica.bocchinfuso@ogletree.com
ADVANCE AMERICA: Viamontes Discrimination Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, et al., removed the case captioned as LISET
VIAMONTES, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. ADVANCE AMERICA, CASH ADVANCE CENTERS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; ADVANCE AMERICA, CASH ADVANCE CENTERS OF CALIFORNIA,
LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. CIVDS1928605 (Filed Sept. 25, 2019), from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Bernardino to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec.
12, 2019.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:19-cv-02389 to the proceeding.
The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for disability
discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in an
interactive process, disability harassment, failure to prevent
discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and wrongful
termination in violation of public policy pursuant the Government
Code--Fair Employment and Housing Act. The Plaintiff seeks all
recoverable damages, including compensatory damages, emotional
distress damages, punitive damages, statutory penalties, and
attorneys' fees.
Advance America offers online cash advances and fast cash
loans.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Hardy Ray Murphy, Esq.
Alexandra C. Aurisch, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213-239-9800
Facsimile: 213-239-9045
E-mail: hardy.murphy@ogletree.com
alexandra.aurisch@ogletree.com
AEROCARE HOME: Certification of Class Customer Service Reps Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as LORI HOPKINS and KILA HAGLER,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. AEROCARE HOME MEDICAL EQUIPMENT, INC., et al., the
Defendants, Case 2:19-cv-04054-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs move
the court for an order:
1. conditionally certifying a class of:
"all persons formerly and/or presently employed by
Defendants who performed Customer Service Representative
(CSR) duties during the notice period who were not paid
hourly for the time spent working on-call";
2. approving the dissemination of notice to all collective
action members;
3. requiring Defendants to produce a list of all potential
collective action members, including their respective last
known mailing address, e-mail address and location at which
they worked, in electronic format, and to otherwise
cooperate with Plaintiffs to ensure a comprehensive
distribution of the notice materials in a timely fashion;
4. appointing Lori Hopkins and Plaintiff Kila Hagler as class
representatives;
5. appointing Newman, Comley & Ruth, P.C. and Cook, Vetter,
Doerhoff & Landwehr, P.C. as class co-counsel; and
6. directing the Defendants to refrain from communicating with
any potential class member about the case or issues related
to the case without prior Court approval.
Aerocare Home provide medical supplies and equipment which are
considered as Medicare chargeable items.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:
Matthew A. Clement, Esq.
Kari A. Schulte, Esq.
COOK, VETTER, DOERHOFF & LANDWEHR, P.C.
231 Madison
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Telephone: (573) 635-7977
Facsimile: (573) 635-7414
E-mail: mclement@cvdl.net
kschulte@cvdl.net
- and -
Ryan J. McDaniels, Esq.
Kimberly J.Z. Guthrie, Esq.
NEWMAN, COMLEY & RUTH P.C.
601 Monroe Street, Suite 301
P.O. Box 537
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Telephone: (573) 634-2266
Facsimile: (573) 636-3306
E-mail: ryan.m@ncrpc.com
guthriek@ncrpc.com
AGILANT SOLUTIONS: Class in O'Conner Suit Conditionally Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAVAN OCONNER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, RAMIN PENA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, JONATHAN CEPADA, individually
and: on behalf of all others similarly situated, and SHAWN
GRIFFITH, Plaintiffs, v. AGILANT SOLUTIONS, INC., doing business as
ASI System Integration, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-6937-GHW
(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Gregory H. Woods of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted (i) the Plaintiffs'
motion to conditionally certify a collective of field technicians
(FTs) who were directly or indirectly employed by Agilant
Solutions, Inc ("ASI"); and (ii) the Plaintiffs' request for
equitable tolling of the statute of limitations applicable to their
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") claims.
Named Plaintiffs O'Conner, Ramin Pena, Jonathan Cepada, and Shawn
Griffith together with opt-in Plaintiffs Rashood Earle and
Khazaizal Tamin McGann were employed as Field Technicians ("FTs")
either directly or indirectly by Defendant ASI. In affidavits,
Plaintiffs aver that Defendant had a policy of sending emails to
FTs after their workday had ended that required them to work to
prepare for the following day. Because these emails required them
to work overtime for which they were not compensated, the
Plaintiffs allege that the policy violated Section 216(b) of the
FLSA. The Plaintiffs have made a modest factual showing that they
are similarly situated to other FTs and that together, the
Plaintiffs and the other FTs were subjected to a common policy or
plan that violated the FLSA.
The Plaintiffs filed a class and collective action complaint
alleging breaches of New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and the FLSA on
August 3, 2018. The original complaint sought certification of an
FLSA collective action and a class action pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23 consisting of all individuals employed by
Defendant as Field Service Technicians, in worksites throughout New
York State at any point" from three years prior to the filing of
the Complaint through final disposition of the action. The
Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint, and filed the
SAC on Jan. 24, 2019.
The SAC seeks conditional certification of two FLSA collectives.
First, the Plaintiffs seek certification of an "Indirectly Employed
Collective Class" under the FLSA consisting of all persons
presently or formerly jointly employed by Defendant Agilant and
another IT staffing vendor, assigned to worksites located
throughout New York City at any time within the three years prior
to the action's filing date through the date of the final
disposition of this action who were subject to the Defendant's
unlawful policy of 'paying to schedule' and failing to pay overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek.
Second, the Plaintiffs seek certification of a "Directly Employed
Collective Class" under the FLSA consisting of all persons
presently or formerly employed directly by Agilant after
transitioning employment from indirect employment, and were
salaried Field Service Technicians assigned to worksites located
throughout New York City at any time within the Collective Class
Period and who were allegedly subject to the same unlawful policies
as the Indirectly Employed Collective Class.
Plaintiffs now move for conditional collective certification under
the FLSA. They seek court-facilitated notice of the action,
including a consent form, and the Court's approval of their
proposed notice and consent form. To that end, they ask the Court
to order posting of the notice and consent forms in a conspicuous
place at the Defendant's places of business and to authorize the
dissemination of these forms to members of the putative class via
mail, e-mail, and text message.
To further facilitate the dissemination of the notice, the
Plaintiffs seek the production of a computer-readable list of the
names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses,
social security numbers, birth dates, dates of employment and job
titles for all persons employed at ASI as Field Technicians between
May 15, 2016 and the present date. They also seek expedited
disclosure of the identity and contact information of all similarly
situated persons and equitable tolling of the statute of
limitations during the pendency of the Motion.
The Plaintiffs have filed a declaration that attaches five
affidavits of former FTs, ASI business records, emails, their
proposed notice, and a reminder postcard in support of their
motion. The Defendant filed an opposition to the Plaintiff's
motion, Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion To Preliminarily
Certify A Coll[ec]tive Action and Request To Toll, accompanied by
two affirmations attaching ASI business records in opposition,
Affirmation of Mohammad Ilyas in Opposition to Motion for
Conditional Certification; Affirmation of Joseph Roman in
Opposition to Motion for Conditional Certification. The Plaintiffs
filed a reply to the Defendant's opposition.
Judge Woods holds that the Plaintiffs have met the limited burden
applicable at this stage of the litigation to show that they and
other New York FTs were subjected to a common policy or plan. They
have also met their limited burden to show that the Defendant's
policy or plan violated the law. At this stage of the litigation,
that is sufficient to establish that the Defendant's policy
violated the FLSA. Hence, the Plaintiffs have shown that they are
similarly situated to other FTs, and the Plaintiffs and FTs
generally were subjected to a common policy or plan that violated
the law.
The Plaintiffs have averred that the Defendant had a policy that
required all FTs to work off the clock. Because their claims are
based on this policy, these claims are amenable to collective
disposition. Although individualized issues may remain after
adjudication of whether the Defendant's policy violated the law,
these issues can be addressed during separate phases of the
litigation as necessary. Thus, the individualized issues presented
by the Plaintiffs' claims do not defeat conditional certification
in the case.
The Judge finds that at the collective certification stage, the
Court need not resolve factual disputes or decide substantive
issues going to the ultimate merits. Rather, it is merely
concerned with whether the Plaintiffs were similarly situated to
other FTs and whether FTs generally were subjected to a common
policy or plan that violated the law. Accordingly, he holds that
the Defendant's arguments are premature and do not defeat
collective certification.
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to conditionally certify a collective
consisting of FTs who were directly employed by the Defendant and
those who were "indirectly" employed by the Defendant via a
third-party temporary staffing agency such as TSP. The Judge finds
that the Plaintiffs have not presented direct evidence to support a
finding that ASI directly or indirectly employed FTs in Staten
Island. However, it is a reasonable inference that any such
employees were subject to the policies and practices used by ASI in
the other boroughs. Thus, he will conditionally certify collective
limited to FTs who are or were previously employed directly or
indirectly by ASI in New York City.
Finally, the Judge will grant the Plaintiffs' request to equitably
toll the FLSA statute of limitations from the time that they filed
their collective certification motion on May 15, 2019 through the
date of the Order. The time required for the Court to resolve the
motion also justifies equitable tolling.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Woods granted the Plaintiff's
request to conditionally certify a collective action consisting of
FTs who are currently employed by ASI or were previously employed
for three years prior to May 15, 2019 until the date of the Order,
either directly or indirectly, in New York City.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2019 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/pgug6l from Leagle.com.
Javan OConner, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Ramin Pena, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Jonathan Cepada, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Shawn Griffith & Earl Rashadd,
Plaintiffs, represented by Rachel Meredith Haskell --
rhaskell@workingsolutionsnyc.com -- The Law Office of Christopher
Q. Davis PLLC & Christopher Quincy Davis --
cdavis@workingsolutionsnyc.com -- The Law Office of Christopher Q.
Davis, PLLC.
Khazaizal T McGann, Plaintiff, represented by Rachel Meredith
Haskell, The Law Office of Christopher Q. Davis PLLC.
Agilant Solutions, Inc., doing business as ASI System Integration,
Inc., Defendant, represented by Ira A. Sturm -- isturm@rsgllp.com
-- Raab, Sturm & Ganchrow, LLP & Samuel Bloom, Raab, Sturm &
Goldman, LLP.
AIR CANADA: Final Approval of $100,000 Settlement Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MARY DUKES, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AIR
CANADA, the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-02176-EAK-JSS (M.D. Fla.),
the Parties ask the Court for an order:
1. granting their joint motion for final approval of class
action settlement; and
2. certifying two classes:
Proposed Disclosure Form Settlement Class:
"all Air Canada employees and job applicants who applied for
or worked in a position at Air Canada in the United States
and who were the subject of a consumer report that was
procured by Air Canada within five years of the filing of
the complaint [July 30, 2018] through September 6, 2018 and
as to whom Air Canada used a noncompliant FCRA disclosure";
and
Proposed Pre-Adverse Action Notice Subclass:
"all Air Canada employees and job applicants in the United
States against whom an adverse employment action was taken
based, in whole or in part, on information contained in a
consumer report within five years of the filing of this
complaint [July 30, 2018] through September 6, 2018 who were
not provided a pre-adverse notice as required by 15 U.S.C.
section 1681b(b)(3)(A)."
The settlement provides for payments to be made to approximately
1,200 members who are a part of the 15 U.S.C. section
1681b(b)(b)(2) class including a subset of approximately 400 class
members in a 15 U.S.C. section 1681(b)(b)(3) subclass.
The Agreement calls for the creation by Defendant of a common fund
for Class Members consisting of $100,000. The Class Members will
not be required to take any action to receive a settlement amount,
making it a "claims paid" settlement for the class and the
subclass.
Members of the class who did not opt out will each automatically
receive a pro rata gross amount of the settlement fund totaling
approximately $77.41. If the requested amounts are granted for
attorneys’ fees and a Class Representative service award,
Plaintiff anticipates that each (b)(b)(2) class member will receive
a net payment of approximately $41.61, and each class members who
is part of the (b)(b)(3) subclass will also net an additional
$41.61.
On September 26, 2019, the Court granted the Parties' joint motion
for preliminary approval of the class-wide settlement of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claims asserted against Defendant, the
lawsuit says.
On or about July 30, 2018, Mary Dukes filed the class action
lawsuit asserting claims against Defendant under the FCRA on behalf
of herself and on behalf of a proposed class of similarly situated
individuals. The lawsuit generally alleged that Defendant violated
the FCRA by failing to comply with the FCRA's disclosure and
authorization requirements related to consumer reports procured for
"employment purposes," and by also failing to provide pre-adverse
notice before taking adverse action against applicants based on the
contents of a consumer report, the lawsuit added.
The Defendant is an airline providing aviation transportation
services.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Classes are:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
twells@wfclaw.com
Counsel for Air Canada are:
Charles Wachter, Esq.
Bradford D. Kimbro, Esq.
Joseph H. Varner, III
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
100 N. Tampa St., Suite 4100
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 227-8500
Facsimile: (813) 229-0134
AMERICAN BOTTLING: Guzman-Lopez's Bid to Certify Class Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable R. Gary Klausner denies the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification in the lawsuit styled Juan M. Guzman-Lopez v.
The American Bottling Company, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-04358-JFW-GJS (C.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff Juan M. Guzman-Lopez brings this lawsuit against his
former employer, the American Bottling Company, and Keurig-Dr.
Pepper, Inc., for (1) failure to pay regular, minimum, and overtime
wages; (2) failure to pay wages due upon termination; (3) failure
to provide accurate wage statements; (4) meal and rest break
violations.
Mr. Guzman-Lopez seeks to represent a class defined as:
"All persons who have been employed by Keurig-Dr. Pepper,
Inc. and The American Bottling Company in California as a
non-exempt employee at any time during the period beginning
four years prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending
on the date as determined by the Court ("Class Period"),"
who fall under one or more of the following subclasses:
a) Off-the-Clock Subclass: those who were not paid for all
hours worked, in any pay period within the Class Period;
b) Meal Break Subclass: those who worked more than five
hours and were not provided with uninterrupted meal
periods of at least thirty minutes, and/or their meal
periods began after the end of the fifth hour of work;
c) Rest Break Subclass: those who were not provided
uninterrupted rest breaks of at least ten minutes for
each four hours of work;
d) Wage Statement Subclass: those who were not provided with
accurately itemized wage statements listing all hours
worked; and
e) Waiting Time Subclass: those who were not paid all wages
due and owing at the time of their separation.
According to the Court's Civil Minutes, not only has the Plaintiff
failed to establish commonality warranting certification, but the
Defendants' declarations and policies submitted in opposition to
the Motion effectively rebut the existence of actionable common
policies and practices that might give rise to common issues
capable of classwide resolution. Accordingly, the Court finds that
the Plaintiff did not satisfy the commonality requirement under
Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Because the Court finds the Plaintiff fails to demonstrate
requisite commonality pursuant to Rule 23(a), the Court foregoes
the remainder of Rule 23 analysis and denies the Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification.[CC]
AMERICAN HONDA: Wong Sues Over Defective AC System in Civics
------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE WONG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a Delaware corporation; and Does
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-10537 (C.D. Cal., Dec.
12, 2019), seeks damages against Honda for breach of manufacturer's
warranty and for unfair or deceptive acts or practices pertaining
to Honda's design and manufacture of 2016-2018 model Honda Civics.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Class Vehicles contain a significant
design and/or manufacturing defect that causes a vehicle's air
conditioning system to malfunction and stop working while it is in
operation. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defect directly affects
his and and all others similarly situated use, enjoyment, safety,
and value of the Class Vehicles.
The Defect's presence poses a safety risk to the operator and
passengers of the Class Vehicles, the Plaintiff alleges. He
contends that the lack of a functioning air conditioning
system--including the lack of working climate control and defroster
controls--can cause health dangers that expose the driver and
occupants of the Class Vehicles to an increased risk of injury or
death.
According to the complaint, Honda has long been aware of the Defect
but routinely refuses to repair the Class Vehicles without charge.
Indeed, in many cases Honda has even refused to disclose the
Defect's existence when owners or lessees present for service Class
Vehicles with symptoms consistent with the Defect, instead
recommending costly repairs, sometimes to non-defective parts of
the affected vehicle.
As a result of Honda's unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent
business practices, owners and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles,
including the Plaintiff, have suffered an ascertainable loss of
money and/or property and/or loss in value, the Plaintiff asserts.
He adds that had her and other Class Members known of the Defect at
the time of purchase or lease, they would not have bought or leased
the Class Vehicles, or would have paid substantially less for
them.
American Honda Motor Co., Inc. develops and manufactures
automobiles. The Company offers passenger cars, trucks,
motorcycles, ATVs, generators, marine engines, lawn and garden
equipment, parts, and accessories. American Honda Motor serves
customers worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
David C. Wright, Esq.
Steven A. Haskins, Esq.
Mark I. Richards, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
3281 Guasti Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
dcw@mccunewright.com
sah@mccunewright.com
mir@mccunewright.com
- and -
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER , LLP
31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: 805 270 7100
Facsimile: 805 270 7589
E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
AMERICAN INSTITUTE: Jimenez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Au Pairs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Fernandez Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. American Institute for Foreign Study, Inc.
dba Au Pair in America, William J. Gertz, Does 1-10, Case No. 20-83
(Mass. Cmmw., Jan. 9, 2020), is brought against the Defendants to
recover unpaid wages for au pairs.
APIA advertises to, recruits, screens, trains, places, supervises
and oversees au pairs during their stay and work performed in host
families' homes in the United States. APIA obtains substantial fees
from prospective au pairs, contracts with them, and arranges for
their placement with the host families.
On April 1, 2015, the Massachusetts Domestic Worker's Bill of
Rights went into effect, providing various protections for domestic
workers, including au pairs. On August 1, 2017, the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed a
litigation brought under the MDWBR, ruling that the minimum wage,
overtime and other employment protections for au pairs were not
preempted by the federal au pair program. That decision was
affirmed by the First Circuit in December 2019.
In 2014, APIA and other au pair agencies were named in, and later
settled, a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of a nationwide
class of au pairs, in the Colorado District Court, ultimately
agreed to pay millions of dollars to au pairs who alleged that they
were entitled to, but not paid, minimum wage and overtime pursuant
to the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
Despite knowing for years that au pairs in Massachusetts were
required to be paid Massachusetts wages, the Plaintiff contends,
APIA repeatedly told au pairs they were only entitled to be paid,
and host families they were only required to pay, the minimum
federal stipend of $195.75 per week. The Plaintiff asserts that
APIA never paid its au pairs the required Massachusetts wages. The
Defendants were at all times the au pairs' employer and the
Defendants are responsible for the au pairs' unpaid wages, the
Plaintiff adds.
Plaintiff Jimenez is an individual au pair, who resided with a host
family in Massachusetts.
APIA is one of only 15 J-1 visa au pair program sponsors designated
by the U.S. Department of State to recruit, train, place and
supervise au pairs for fees charged to host families in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq.
Josh Gardner, Esq.
GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C.
One State Street, Fourth Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: 617-390-7570
Email: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com
ARK RESTAURANTS: Former Tipped Workers' Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Ark Restaurants Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended September 28, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by two former
tipped service workers.
On May 1, 2018, two former tipped service workers, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated personnel, filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company and certain
subsidiaries as well as certain officers of the Company.
Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and the putative class,
that the Company violated certain of the New York State Labor Laws
and related regulations.
The Complaint seeks unspecified money damages, together with
interest, liquidated damages and attorney fees.
There has been no discovery on the merits of the Complaint and the
matter is still in the initial stages of discovery concerning
whether the named Plaintiffs are seeking to represent an
appropriate class of tipped service workers, and if so, whether the
named Plaintiffs are appropriate class representatives.
The Company's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint was denied on June
27, 2019.
The Company believes that the allegations and claims in the
Complaint are without merit, and it intends to defend itself
vigorously in this litigation.
Ark Restaurants said, "However, the outcomes of legal actions are
unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, and thus it
is inherently difficult to determine the probability or
quantification of any loss. Based on information currently
available, including the Company's assessment of the facts
underlying the Complaint and advice of counsel, the amount or range
of reasonably possible losses, if any, cannot be estimated.
Accordingly, the Company has not recorded any accrual related to
this matter as of September 28, 2019."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Ark Restaurants Corp. owns and operates 20 restaurants and bars, 19
fast food concepts and catering operations in the U.S. The New
York-based Company's portfolio of brands includes Shuckers, The
Rustic Inn, and Southwest Porch.
AU PAIR CARE: Faces Munoz Suit in Massachusetts Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Silvia Juliana Forero Munoz, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AU PAIR CARE, INC., INTRAX, INC. dba
AUPAIRCARE, MARCIE SCHNEIDER and DOES 1-10, Case No. 20-82 (Mass.
Cmmw., Jan. 9, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for au
pairs' unpaid wages.
APIA advertises to, recruits, screens, trains, places, supervises
and oversees au pairs during their stay and work performed in host
families' homes in the United States. APIA obtains substantial fees
from prospective au pairs, contracts with them, and arranges for
their placement with the host families.
On April 1, 2015, the Massachusetts Domestic Worker's Bill of
Rights went into effect, providing various protections for domestic
workers, including au pairs. On August 1, 2017, the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed a
litigation brought under the MDWBR, ruling that the minimum wage,
overtime and other employment protections for au pairs were not
preempted by the federal au pair program. That decision was
affirmed by the First Circuit in December 2019.
In 2014, APIA and other au pair agencies were named in, and later
settled, a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of a nationwide
class of au pairs, in the Colorado District Court, ultimately
agreed to pay millions of dollars to au pairs who alleged that they
were entitled to, but not paid, minimum wage and overtime pursuant
to the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
Despite knowing for years that au pairs in Massachusetts were
required to be paid Massachusetts wages, the Plaintiff contends,
APIA repeatedly told au pairs they were only entitled to be paid,
and host families they were only required to pay, the minimum
federal stipend of $195.75 per week. The Plaintiff asserts that
APIA never paid its au pairs the required Massachusetts wages. The
Defendants were at all times the au pairs' employer and the
Defendants are responsible for the au pairs' unpaid wages, the
Plaintiff adds.
Plaintiff Munoz is an individual au pair, who resided with a host
family in Massachusetts.
APC is one of only 15 J-1 visa au pair program sponsors designated
by the U.S. Department of State to recruit, train, place and
supervise au pairs for fees charged to host families in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq.
Josh Gardner, Esq.
GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C
One State Street, Fourth Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: 617-390-7570
Email: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com
AURORA CANNABIS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against publicly-traded Aurora
Cannabis Inc.
You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below
or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations
Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at
212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its
choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
Aurora Cannabis Inc. (NYSE: ACB)
Class Period: September 11, 2019 - November 14, 2019
Deadline: January 21, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/acb
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Aurora Cannabis Inc. ("Aurora" or the "Company") revenue
would decline in its first quarter of fiscal 2020 ended September
30, 2019; (2) the Company would halt construction on its Aurora
Nordic 2 and Aurora Sun facilities; and (3) due to the foregoing,
defendants' statements about Aurora's receivables, business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
Contact:
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Tel: 212-697-6484
E-mail: info@bgandg.com
peretz@bgandg.com
[GN]
AURORA CANNABIS: Faces Eaton Suit Over Decline in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip and Kathy Eaton, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. AURORA CANNABIS INC., TERRY BOOTH, STEPHEN
DOBLER, GLEN IBBOTT, CAM BATTLEY, MICHAEL SINGER, and JASON DYCK,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00274 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 10, 2020), seeks to recover
damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 that resulted in the precipitous decline in
the market value of the Company's securities.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons, other than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise
acquired Aurora Cannabis Inc. securities between October 23, 2018,
and January 6, 2020, both dates inclusive,
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Aurora had exaggerated and/or overestimated the demand for and
potential market for its consumer use cannabis products; (ii) as a
result, Aurora was overproducing consumer use cannabis products,
leading to construction and production inefficiencies as well as
the oversupply of products to its non-warehouse and warehouse
customers; (iii) Aurora was utilizing an unpermitted, proprietary
form of treatment in the production process of its medical cannabis
geared to obtain a longer shelf life of the flower, which violates
German law mandating that companies receive special permission to
distribute medical products exposed to ionizing irradiation; and
(iv) all of the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material
negative impact on the Company's financial results.
The market began to learn the truth through a series of adverse
disclosures beginning on November 14, 2019, when Aurora released
dismal fiscal first quarter 2020 financial results for the period
ending on September 30, 2019. In particular, Aurora shocked
investors when it announced wider than expected losses and that
revenue had declined by 24% quarter over quarter. As a result, the
Company reported net income of $10.4 million for the quarter,
compared with net income of $104.2 million for the same quarter
last year, representing a 90% year over year decline.
In addition, Aurora disclosed it would be halting construction
immediately at its massive Aurora Nordic 2 facility in Odense,
Denmark, to save approximately $80 million over the next year, and
indefinitely defer completion of construction and commissioning at
its flagship Aurora Sun facility in Medicine Hat, Alberta, to
conserve $110 million.
On this news, Aurora's stock price fell $.56 per share, or over
17%, to close at $2.73 per share on November 15, 2019.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiffs and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased Aurora securities during the Class
Period.
Aurora's principal strategic business lines are focused on the
production, distribution and sale of cannabis and hemp products in
Canada and internationally.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason Zweig, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 752-5455
Facsimile: (917) 210-3980
Email: jasonz@hbsslaw.com
- and –
Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq.
Danielle Smith, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
Email: reed@hbsslaw.com
lucasg@hbsslaw.com
danielles@hbsslaw.com
- and –
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Ave., Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
AURORA CANNABIS: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of
publicly-traded Aurora Cannabis Inc. Investors have until the
deadline listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
Aurora Cannabis Inc. (NYSE: ACB)
Class Period: September 11, 2019 - November 14, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 21, 2020
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 Aurora's revenue would decline in its first
quarter of fiscal 2020 ended September 30, 2019; (2) that the
Company would halt construction on its Aurora Nordic 2 and Aurora
Sun facilities; and (3) that 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.
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 these class actions, 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,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
Contact:
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Tel: 215-638-4847, 888-638-4847
Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com
Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
[GN]
BIG LOTS: Settlement Reached in California Wage & Hour Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended November 2, 2019, that a settlement has
been
reached in purported wage and hour class actions in California.
The company is currently defending three purported wage and hour
class actions and several individual representative actions in
California.
The cases were brought by various current and/or former California
associates alleging various violations of California wage and hour
laws.
Upon further consideration of these matters, including outcomes of
cases against other retailers, during the first quarter of 2019,
the company determined a loss from these matters was probable and
the company increased its accrual for litigation by recording a
$7.3 million charge as its best estimate for these matters in
aggregate.
Since the end of the first quarter of 2019, the company reached
tentative settlements in each of the class actions, subject to
final documentation and court approval.
Big Lots said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against
the allegations levied in the remaining lawsuits. We believe the
existing accrual for litigation remains appropriate."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Big Lots, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a community
retailer in the United States. Big Lots, Inc. was founded in 1967
and is headquartered in Columbus, Ohio.
CAREER EDUCATION: Loughman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Loughman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-00200
(N.D. Ill., Jan. 10, 2020), is brought for injunctive relief and
statutory damages resulting from the Defendant's conduct that
violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Defendant placed telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff and
others similarly situated on their cellular telephones with the use
of an "automatic telephone dialing system", without prior express
consent, according to the complaint. The Defendant also failed to
implement mandatory minimum procedures required by the TCPA for
making telemarketing calls, including the most basic requirement of
maintaining a list of persons, who request not to receive such
calls and not calling such persons, who make do- not-call requests,
says the complaint.
Plaintiff Carrie Loughman resided in Homer, Ohio.
CEC operates for-profit higher education institutions, including
American Intercontinental University.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan W. Nicgorski, Esq.
HANSEN REYNOLDS LLC
150 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2400
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312-265-2252
Fax: 414-273-8476
Email: anicgorski@hansenreynolds.com
- and -
Michael C. Lueder, Esq.
301 N. Broadway, Suite 400
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Phone: 414-273-7676
Fax: 414-273-8476
Email: mlueder@hansenreynolds.com
- and -
Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
Roger N. Heller, Esq.
Sarah R. London, Esq.
Avery S. Halfon, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 956-1000
- and -
Andrew R. Kaufman, Esq.
222 Second Avenue South, Suite 1640
Nashville, TN 37201
Phone: (615)313-9000
Email: akaufman@lchb.com
- and -
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: 617-485-0018
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and –
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103-8869
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
CARLOS LOPEZ: Settlement in Steven Suit Denied Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied approval of the parties' settlement in
the class action ROBIN STEVEN et al., Plaintiffs, v. CARLOS LOPEZ &
ASSOCIATES, LLC, and CARLOS LOPEZ, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 18-CV-6500 (JMF) (S.D. N.Y.).
In June 2018, an employee of Defendant Carlos Lopez & Associates,
LLC ("CLA"), a provider of mental and behavioral health services to
veterans and others, accidentally sent an email containing personal
information about approximately 130 current and former CLA
employees to a distribution list of current CLA employees (a group
numbering about 65). Although there is no evidence that the
personal information contained in the email was shared with anyone
outside of CLA, let alone misused, several people whose information
had been shared sued on behalf of a class of all those whose
information had been shared, alleging negligence and violations of
several states' laws.
Defendants CLA and Carlos Lopez moved to dismiss for, among other
things, lack of Article III standing, but before the Plaintiffs
filed any opposition to that motion, the parties reached a
class-wide settlement. The Plaintiffs now move for approval of the
parties' settlement and an award of attorney's fees.
Judge Furman holds that although unopposed, the Plaintiffs' motion
will be denied. He explains that a court is powerless to approve a
proposed class settlement if it lacks jurisdiction over the
dispute, and federal courts lack jurisdiction if no named plaintiff
has standing. Thus, although the parties have reached a settlement
-- and in light of that settlement, the Defendants have apparently
agreed not to press their arguments about standing despite
remaining of the view that Plaintiffs do not actually have standing
-- the Court is not free to stick its head in the sand. Instead,
it must confirm for itself that the Plaintiffs have standing. The
Judge concludes that they do not. In the absence of an allegation
or evidence that an unauthorized third party intentionally stole
the data at issue, courts have concluded that the risk of identity
theft is too speculative to support Article III standing.
In short, the Court is "powerless to approve" the parties' proposed
class settlement because "no named plaintiff has standing." It
follows that the Plaintiffs' motion for approval of the settlement
must be and is denied and that the case must be and is dismissed,
Judge Furman opines. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate
and close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2019 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/oD5p39 from Leagle.com.
Robin Steven, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Sean Mungin, on behalf of
themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public &
Devonne McMorris, Plaintiffs, represented by Ishan Dave --
Ishan@dereksmithlaw.com -- Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC & Abraham
Zev Wolf Melamed -- abe@dereksmithlaw.com -- Derek Smith Law Group,
PLLC.
Carlos Lopez & Associates, LLC & Carlos Lopez, Defendants,
represented by Janie C. Buckley -- jbuckley@mofo.com -- Morrison &
Foerster LLP & Michael Bruce Miller -- mbmiller@mofo.com --
Morrison & Foerster LLP.
CAVALRY LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Van Roeyen Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Van Roeyen, on behalf of herself and a class of all those
similarly situated v. CAVALRY LOGISTICS and UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS
HOLDINGS d/b/a UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00184 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 9, 2020), accuses the Defendants
of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act by
failing to pay proper overtime wages.
The Plaintiff says she and the putative class members regularly
worked more than 40 hours per week. She adds that they did not
regularly take meal breaks or other breaks, and instead ate at
their desks and continued to work.
According to the complaint, the Defendants did not pay the
Plaintiff and the putative class members overtime or any other
additional compensation for the hours they worked in excess of 40
per week. The also Defendants failed to keep records of the time
worked each week by the Plaintiff and the putative class members,
in violation of the FLSA and the IMWL.
Plaintiff Susan Van Roeyen is a female former employee of Cavalry
and Universal.
Cavalry is a global provider of transportation services and
logistics solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ethan G. Zelizer, Esq.
HR LAW COUNSEL, LLC
50 S. Main St., Ste. 200
Naperville, IL 60540
Phone: (630) 551-8374
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Continues to Defend Rael Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Children's Place, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended October 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Rael v. The
Children's Place, Inc.
The Company is a defendant in Rael v. The Children's Place, Inc., a
purported class action, pending in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of California. In the initial complaint filed in
February 2016, the plaintiff alleged that the Company falsely
advertised discount prices in violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in April 2016, adding
allegations of violations of other state consumer protection laws.
In August 2016, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
adding an additional plaintiff and removing the other state law
claims. The plaintiffs' second amended complaint seeks to represent
a class of California purchasers and seeks, among other items,
injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company engaged in mediation proceedings with the plaintiffs in
December 2016 and April 2017. The parties reached an agreement in
principle in April 2017, and signed a definitive settlement
agreement in November 2017, to settle the matter on a class basis
with all individuals in the U.S. who made a qualifying purchase at
The Children's Place from February 11, 2012 through the date of
preliminary approval by the court of the settlement.
The settlement is subject to court approval and provides for
merchandise vouchers for class members who submit valid claims, as
well as payment of legal fees and expenses and claims
administration expenses.
The court stayed the matter in April 2018, pending an appellate
court ruling in another lawsuit to which the Company is not a
party.
In June 2019, the court entered an order lifting the stay.
The settlement, if ultimately approved by the court, will result in
the dismissal of all claims through the date of the court's
preliminary approval of the settlement. However, if the settlement
is rejected by the court, the parties will likely return to
litigation, and in such event, no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of this matter. In connection with the proposed
settlement, the Company recorded a reserve for $5.0 million in its
consolidated financial statements in the first quarter of 2017.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Children's Place, Inc. operates as a children's specialty
apparel retailer. The company operates through two segments, The
Children's Place U.S. and The Children's Place International. The
company was formerly known as The Children's Place Retail Stores,
Inc. and changed its name to The Children's Place, Inc. in June
2014. The Children's Place, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is
headquartered in Secaucus, New Jersey.
CHRISTINE M FONTANA: Ramseure Sues Over Improper Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Demont Ramseure and Jarmar Paul, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. CHRISTINE M. FONTANA COMPANIES, LLC,
AVIS BUDGET CAR RENTAL, LLC BUDGET RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC., Case
No. 1:20-cv-00027 (W.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the New York Labor Law and the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and for breach of implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing and the doctrine of unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiffs allege that they, on a typical week, would work
overtime exceeding 40 hours worked for each pay period, but were
never compensated at a premium overtime rate of
one-and-a-half-times their regular base salary.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants at its location in
Buffalo, New York.
Defendant Christine M. Fontana Companies, LLC, conducts business
through two rental car locations located in or around Buffalo, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Samuel Alba, Esq.
FRIEDMAN & RANZENHOFER, P.C.
74 Main Street
PO Box 31
Akron, NY 14001
Phone: (716)-542-5444
- and -
Scott J. Bogucki, Esq.
GLEICHENHAUS, MARCHESE, & WEISHAAR, P.C.
930 Convention Tower
43 Court Street
Buffalo, NY 14202
Phone: (716) 845-6446
CHRISTOPHER & BANKS: Feb. 13 Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher & Banks Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended November 2, 2019, that oral argument
on the motion to dismiss the class action suit initiated by Mark
Gottlieb is scheduled before the Delaware Court of Chancery for
February 13, 2020.
On August 14, 2019, Mark Gottlieb, a Company stockholder, filed a
purported class action lawsuit against Jonathan Duskin; Seth
Johnson; Keri Jones; Kent Kleeberger; William Sharpe, III; Joel
Waller and Laura Weil (the "Named Directors"), B. Riley FBR, Inc.
and B. Riley Financial Inc., in the Court of Chancery in the State
of Delaware, on behalf of himself and all stockholders who held
shares as of December 20, 2018.
The lawsuit alleges that the Named Directors breached their duty of
loyalty in connection with the Company's rejection in December of
2018, of an unsolicited bid to acquire the Company.
The lawsuit further alleges that the B. Riley firms aided and
abetted the asserted breach of the duty of loyalty by the Named
Directors. The Company believes the Complaint is without merit. The
Named Directors, and the Company on their behalf, together with the
B. Riley firms, intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.
On September 18, 2019, the Director Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. The motion has been briefed by
Plaintiff and the Defendants and oral argument on the motion is
scheduled before the Court of Chancery on February 13, 2020.
Christopher & Banks Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
as a specialty retailer of private-brand women's apparel and
accessories in the United States. It was formerly known as Braun's
Fashions Corporation and changed its name to Christopher & Banks
Corporation in July 2000. The Company was founded in 1956 and is
headquartered in Plymouth, Minnesota.
CINTAS CORP: Faces Stafford Suit Over Decline of Share Price
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID STAFFORD, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CINTAS CORPORATION, SCOTT D. FARMER, J. MICHAEL HANSEN,
and PAUL F. ADLER, Case No. 1:19-cv-01054-SJD (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 12,
2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On May 26, 2019, following a fire in Aurora, Illinois, the Aurora
Fire Department's inspection revealed that Cintas' employee, who
filled out the paperwork regarding the building's sprinkler
system's test and inspection was not licensed. The Fire
Department's full investigation into Cintas revealed that eight of
the twelve Cintas inspectors in Aurora were not licensed by the
State of Illinois for these inspections.
In Indiana, the City of Hobart Fire Marshall filed a complaint with
the Contractor's Licensing Board after noticing that Cintas had
performed work without a contractor's license. Cintas inspected a
fire system without proper licensing or protocol--including not
disabling the system before inspection nor setting up a fire watch
while the system was down. In addition, Cintas' failure to ensure
that a haul truck's fire suppression system was installed and
maintained resulted in a death on September 7, 2018, at the Bear
Run Mine in Carlisle, Indiana.
As noted in the U.S. Department of Labor Mine and Safety
Administration Coal Mine Safety and Health Report of Investigation,
the "Root Cause" of the fatal equipment fire accident was: The mine
operator and Cintas did not ensure the fire suppression system on
the Caterpillar 793C haul truck, company number 2-170, was
installed and maintained in accordance with manufacturer's
recommendations, says the complaint.
On July 26, 2019, Cintas filed its annual report on Form 10-K with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended May 31,
2019. The 2019 10-K was signed by Defendants Farmer and Hansen. The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: Cintas never tracked
legacy margins following the acquisition of G&K Services, Inc.; the
Company has systematically provided guidance with which it would
outperform (a "Beat and Raise" scheme); undisclosed to the
investing public, the Company has breached the law multiple times;
as a result of public and undisclosed breaches of law, the Credit
Agreement may be jeopardized; and as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.
On November 13, 2019, Spruce Point Capital Management released an
investment research report (the "Spruce Point Report") detailing
several major issues with Cintas. The Spruce Point Report found
that Cintas's management repeatedly claimed that the G&K
acquisition would improve Cintas's legacy margins while it was
discussing the acquisition to investors. Cintas never developed or
implemented measures to specifically track Cintas legacy margins,
as opposed to Defendant Hansen's statements during the Q1 2018
Earnings Call.
On this news, shares of Cintas fell $3.61 per share to close at
$255.24 per share on November 13, 2019, damaging investors.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
decline in the market value of the Company's common shares,
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff purchased Cintas securities during the Class Period
and was economically damaged thereby.
Cintas supplies corporate identity uniform programs, and provides
entrance and logo mats, restroom supplies, promotional products,
first aid, safety, fire protection products and services, and
industrial carpet and tile cleaning. The Company operates more than
400 facilities in North America, including six manufacturing plants
and eight distribution centers. The Individual Defendants are
officers and directors of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
Beau D. Hollowell, Esq.
KARON LLC
700 W. St. Clair Ave., Ste. 200
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: 216.622.1851
Facsimile: 216.241.8175
E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com
bhollowell@karonllc.com
- and -
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
DANIEL MARKUS: Fails to Pay Managers' Overtime Wages, Lustig Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Lustig, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. DANIEL MARKUS, INC. (D/B/A Perfect Pawn), DANIEL RISIS,
MARGARITA RISIS and OLEG NEIZVESTNY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00379
(D.N.J., Jan. 10, 2020), is brought against the Defendants under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law
for their misclassification of employees with the title of
"Manager" as exempt from overtime pay and the consequent failure to
pay the Plaintiff and the other Managers at time and one-half their
hourly rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
Mr. Lustig contends that the Defendants misclassified him and the
Managers as exempt from overtime pay and consequently failed to pay
them at time and one-half their hourly rate for hours worked over
40 in a workweek. The Defendants misclassified him and the other
Managers as exempt employees under the FLSA and NJWHL and
maintained a policy and practice of requiring them to work in
excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and
overtime compensation required by those federal and state law
regulations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Manager at Daniel
Markus' Morristown, New Jersey pawn shop.
The Defendants own, operate, or control several pawn shops located
throughout New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chester R. Ostrowski, Esq.
Brett R. Gallaway, Esq.
MCLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
260 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 448-1100
Email: costrowski@mclaughlinstern.com
bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com
DELI PARTNERS: Fails to Pay Drivers' OT Wages, Triplett Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER TRIPLETT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. DELI PARTNERS, LLC; HARVEY NORTH LITTLE ROCK,
LLC; DELI PARTNERS OF NORTH LITTLE ROCK, LP; and BOURKE C. HARVEY,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00893-BRW (E.D. Ark., Dec. 12, 2019), arises from
the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and other delivery
drivers the legal minimum hourly wage and overtime compensation for
all hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.
From September 2019 until November 2019, the Plaintiff was employed
by the Defendants as an hourly-paid delivery driver. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants classified him and all similarly
situated members of the FLSA collective as non-exempt from the
overtime requirements of the FLSA.
According to the complaint, despite the entitlement of the
Plaintiff and those similarly situated to minimum wage and overtime
payments under the FLSA, and because the Defendants required them
to pay for automobile expenses and other job-related, out of pocket
expenses, the Defendants failed to pay these drivers a minimum wage
rate for all hours up to 40 in each one week period and an overtime
rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all
hours worked over 40 in each one-week period.
The Defendants own and operate nine Jason's Deli franchise
restaurants in Arkansas, Minnesota, Oklahoma and Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
DOMO INC: Named as Defendant in Patton Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Domo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2019, that the company is defending
against a class action suit entitled, Patton v. Domo, Inc., et. al,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00781-DAK-EJF.
In October 2019, a securities class action complaint captioned
Patton v. Domo, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00781-DAK-EJF, was
filed by a stockholder of the Company in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Utah against the Company and certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors alleging
violations of securities laws and seeking unspecified damages.
The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend the case vigorously.
Domo, Inc. operates a cloud-based platform in the United States.
Its platform digitally connects chief executive officer to the
frontline employee with the people, data, and systems in an
organization, giving them access to real-time data and insights,
and allowing them to manage business from smartphones. The Company
was formerly known as Domo Technologies, Inc. and changed its name
to Domo, Inc. in December 2011. Domo, Inc. was founded in 2010 and
is headquartered in American Fork, Utah.
DOMO INC: Named as Defendant in Volonte Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Domo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2019, that the company is defending
against a securities class action suit entitled, Volonte v. Domo,
Inc., et. al, Case No. 19-04-01778.
In November 2019, a securities class action complaint captioned
Volonte v. Domo, Inc., et. al, Case No. 19-04-01778, was filed by a
stockholder of the Company in the Fourth Judicial District Court
for the County of Utah in the State of Utah against the Company,
certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors,
and the underwriters of the Company's June 2018 initial public
offering alleging violations of securities laws and seeking
unspecified damages.
The Company believes this lawsuit is also without merit and intends
to defend the case vigorously.
Domo, Inc. operates a cloud-based platform in the United States.
Its platform digitally connects chief executive officer to the
frontline employee with the people, data, and systems in an
organization, giving them access to real-time data and insights,
and allowing them to manage business from smartphones. The Company
was formerly known as Domo Technologies, Inc. and changed its name
to Domo, Inc. in December 2011. Domo, Inc. was founded in 2010 and
is headquartered in American Fork, Utah.
ECO SCIENCE: Settlement Discussions Ongoing in Raschke Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eco Science Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 16, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended October 31, 2019, that settlement
discussions is ongoing in the class action suit initiated by
Richard Raschke.
On February 1, 2019, the lead plaintiff, Mr. Richard Raschke, a
purported shareholder of the Company, filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint against the Company, the Taylors, and Mr.
Gannon Giguiere in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.
The Class Action arises out of alleged materially false and
misleading statements or omissions from SEC filings and/or public
statements by or on behalf of Company. The Class Action asserts
claims against all defendants for violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, violation of Section 20(a) of the
Act against the Taylors and Giguiere and Violation of Section 20(b)
against Mr. Giguiere.
The Class Action seeks (1) certification of the purported class of
plaintiffs, (2) compensatory damages in favor of the class and (3)
an award of reasonable costs and expenses.
Defendants have moved to stay this action. The Parties have
tentatively agreed not to prosecute the litigation but, instead, to
engage in settlement discussions.
Eco Science Solutions, Inc., a bio and software technology-focused
company, provides solutions for the health, wellness, and
alternative medicine industry. Its services include business
location, localized communications between consumers and business
operators, social networking, inventory management/selection, and
payment facilitation and delivery. Eco Science Solutions, Inc. was
founded in 2009 and is headquartered in Makawao, Hawaii.
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT: Rosenblatt & Meidenbaur Suits Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ecology and Environment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended November 2, 2019, that the company
continues to defend two class action suits related to its merger
with WSP Global Inc.:
-- Jordan Rosenblatt v. Ecology & Environment, Inc., et al.;
and
-- Randall Meidenbauer v. Ecology & Environment Inc. et al.
On August 28, 2019, Ecology's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with WSP Global Inc.
(WSP). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders
of Ecology will receive $15.00 in cash and a special dividend of up
to $0.50 for each share of Ecology common stock they own.
The lawsuits were filed October 8 and 14, 2019, respectively, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
The Rosenblatt complaint was filed as a putative class action on
behalf of the public shareholders of the Company, while the
Meidenbauer complaint was filed as an individual action on behalf
of the named plaintiff only.
Both complaints name as defendants the Company and the members of
the Company's Board of Directors.
The Rosenblatt complaint generally alleges violations of federal
securities laws with respect to purported disclosure deficiencies
in the preliminary proxy statement for the Merger that the Company
filed with the SEC on September 26, 2019, and the Meidenbauer
complaint generally alleges violations of federal securities laws
with respect to purported disclosure deficiencies in the definitive
proxy statement for the Merger that the Company filed with the SEC
on October 8, 2019 (the "Definitive Proxy Statement").
The complaints seek various forms of relief, including a
preliminary injunction preventing the Company from proceeding with
the stockholder meeting or the consummation of the Merger until the
alleged material information omitted from the Definitive Proxy
Statement is disclosed, rescission of the Merger if it is
consummated, damages, attorneys' fees and expenses.
On October 31, 2019, the Company received a demand letter from an
additional stockholder alleging violations of federal securities
laws with respect to purported disclosure deficiencies in the
Definitive Proxy Statement and threatening to file a lawsuit unless
certain supplemental disclosures were made by the Company regarding
the Merger.
Ecology and Environment, Inc. (EEI) is a global broad-based
environmental consulting firm. The Company offers consulting
services in variety of sectors including energy, natural resource
management and restoration, green programs, hazardous material
services and health sciences. EEI serves both commercial and
government clients. The company is based in Lancaster, New York.
EEB ELECTRIC: Vargas Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
GILMER M. VARGAS, and other similarly situated individuals v. EEB
ELECTRIC SERVICES CORP. and EDGARD E. PONCE BARRIGA, individually,
Case No. 8:19-cv-03060 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 12, 2019), seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid wages, failure to pay overtime wages and
retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that he and all other current and former
employees similarly situated to him worked in excess of 40 hours
during one or more weeks on or after June 2019, without being
compensated overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA.
The Defendants employed Mr. Vargas as an electrician, from June 17,
2019, through November 1, 2019. The Plaintiff was sent to work to
Randall Mechanical, Inc., a provider of for heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning systems installation services, which was
located at 3307 Clarcona Road, in Apopka, Florida.
EEB is a staffing company providing labor for the construction
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.comS
ENERGY TRANSFER: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against publicly-traded Energy
Transfer LP.
You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the link below
or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations
Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at
212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its
choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
Energy Transfer LP (NYSE: ET)
Class Period: February 25, 2017 - November 11, 2019
Deadline: January 21, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/et
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Energy Transfer's permits to conduct the Mariner East
pipeline project in Pennsylvania were secured via bribery and/or
other improper conduct; (2) the foregoing misconduct increased the
risk that the Energy Transfer and/or certain of its employees would
be subject to government and/or regulatory action; and (3) as a
result, Energy Transfer's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
Contact:
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Tel: 212-697-6484
E-mail: info@bgandg.com
peretz@bgandg.com
[GN]
ESSA BANCORP: Unit Continues to Defend 2016 Suit over Kickbacks
---------------------------------------------------------------
ESSA Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 16, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that ESSA Bank & Trust
continues to defend a class action suit.
ESSA Bank & Trust (the Bank) was named as a defendant in an action
commenced on December 8, 2016 by one plaintiff who will also seek
to pursue this action as a class action on behalf of the entire
class of people similarly situated.
The plaintiff alleges that a bank previously acquired by ESSA
Bancorp received unearned fees and kickbacks in the process of
making loans, in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Acts. In an order dated January 29, 2018, the district court
granted the Bank's motion to dismiss the case. The plaintiff
appealed the court's ruling.
In an opinion and order dated April 26, 2019, the appellate court
reversed the district court's order dismissing the plaintiff's case
against the Bank and remanded the case back to the district court
in order to continue the litigation. The litigation is now
proceeding before the district court.
The Bank will continue to vigorously defend against such
allegations.
ESSA said, "To the extent that pending or threatened litigation
could result in exposure to the Bank, the amount of such exposure
is not currently estimable."
ESSA Bancorp, Inc. operates as the holding company for ESSA Bank &
Trust that provides a range of financial services to individuals,
families, and businesses in Pennsylvania. ESSA Bancorp, Inc. was
founded in 1916 and is based in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.
EXELON CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Feb. 14 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Exelon Corporation ("Exelon" or the "Company") (EXC) and
certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States
District Court, for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, and docketed under 19-cv-08209, is on behalf of a class
consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Exelon
securities between February 9, 2019 and November 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 Exelon securities during the
class period, you have until February 14, 2020 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 number of shares purchased.
Exelon is a utility services holding company that engages in energy
generation and delivery businesses in the U.S. and Canada.
Exelon owns various "Utility Registrants" that are regulated by
State utility commissions, including, among other entities,
Commonwealth Edison ("ComEd"). ComEd's parent company is Exelon
Utilities.
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) Exelon and/or its employees
were engaged in unlawful lobbying activities; (ii) the foregoing
increased the risk of a criminal investigation into Exelon; (iii)
ComEd's revenues were in part the product of unlawful conduct and
thus unsustainable; and (iv) that, as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On July 15, 2019, during pre-market hours, Exelon filed a Current
Report on Form 8-K with the SEC, disclosing that both Exelon and
ComEd had "received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Northern District of Illinois requiring production
of information concerning their lobbying activities in the State of
Illinois."
Then, on October 9, 2019, during pre-market hours, Exelon filed
another Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC, disclosing that,
on October 4, 2019, both Exelon and ComEd "received a second grand
jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern
District of Illinois that requires production of records of any
communications with certain individuals and entities, including
Illinois State Senator Martin Sandoval." That Current Report also
disclosed that, as far back as "[o]n June 21, 2019, the Exelon
Corporation Board formed a Special Oversight Committee, consisting
solely of independent directors, to oversee [Exelon and ComEd's]
cooperation and compliance with the subpoena, any further action
taken by the U.S. Attorney and any resulting actions that may be
required or recommended."
On October 15, 2019, shortly before the market closed, Exelon
issued a press release announcing the abrupt departure of Anne
Pramaggiore ("Pramaggiore"), Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") of
Exelon Utilities, and former President/CEO of ComEd. The Company's
statement on Pramaggiore's retirement offered no reason for her
departure, but analysts following the Company came to the
conclusion that the criminal subpoenas and Pramaggiore's abrupt
resignation were related.
On this news, Exelon's stock price fell $2.15 per share, or 4.57%,
to close at $44.91 per share on October 16, 2019.
Then, on October 31, 2019, during intraday trading, Exelon filed a
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q with the SEC, disclosing that "[o]n
October 22, 2019, the SEC notified Exelon and ComEd that it has
also opened an investigation into their lobbying activities."
On this news, Exelon's stock price fell $1.17 per share, or 2.51%,
to close at $45.49 per share on October 31, 2019.
Finally, on November 1, 2019, after the market opened, the Chicago
Tribune reported that "[a] source with knowledge of the case in
Chicago" confirmed that "Pramaggiore is one focus of the ongoing
federal investigation." According to the same article, "[t]he ComEd
lobbying investigation dates to at least mid-May, when the FBI
executed search warrants at the homes of former lobbyist Mike
McClain of Quincy, a longtime confidant of House Speaker Michael
Madigan, and of former 23rd Ward Ald. Michael Zalewski" (emphasis
added). Additionally, "[t]he information sought by the FBI included
records of communications among Madigan, McClain and Zalewski about
attempts to obtain ComEd lobbying work for Zalewski."
On this news, Exelon's stock price fell an additional $0.15 per
share to close at $45.34 per share on November 1, 2019-a total
decline of 2.83% since the initial announcement of the SEC
investigation.
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. [GN]
FASHION MARKETING: Rossano Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA ROSSANO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. FASHION MARKETING AND MERCHANDISING GROUP, INC., f/k/a
SHEIN FASHION GROUP, INC., a California corporation; and, DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-CV-10523 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 12,
2019), alleges that the Defendants promote and market their
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that to solicit new customers, the Defendants
engage in unsolicited telemarketing with no regard for consumers'
privacy rights. She adds that the Defendants caused thousands of
text messages to be placed to her and Class Members' cellular
telephones, causing them injuries.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendants'
illegal conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on
behalf of herself and Class Members and any other available legal
or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendants.
The Defendants specialize in "fast fashion" and operate an
e-commerce platform focusing on women's wear and apparel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Litvak, Esq.
DAPEER ROSENBLIT LITVAK, LLP
11500 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: (310) 477-5575
Facsimile: (310) 477-7090
E-mail: wlitvak@drllaw.com
- and -
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 -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
HAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
19495 Biscayne Boulevard, No. 607
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
FEDEX CORP: Consolidated Class Action Ongoing in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit pending before
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On June 26, 2019 and July 2, 2019, FedEx and certain present and
former officers were named as defendants in two putative class
action securities lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
The complaints, which have been consolidated, allege violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder relating to alleged
misstatements or omissions in FedEx's public filings with the SEC
and other public statements during the period from September 19,
2017 to December 18, 2018.
FedEx said, "We are not currently able to estimate the probability
of loss or the amount or range of potential loss, if any, at this
stage of the litigation."
FedEx Corporation (FedEx) provides a portfolio of transportation,
e-commerce and business services under the FedEx brand. The
Company's primary operating companies include FedEx Express, the
world's largest express transportation company; FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc. ("FedEx Ground"), a leading North American
provider of small-package ground delivery services; and FedEx
Freight, Inc. ("FedEx Freight"), a leading U.S. provider of
less-than-truckload ("LTL") freight services.
FIREFIGHTERS COMMUNITY: Members Hit Overdraft, Double-charging Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Gibbs and Randall and Donna Joy, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Firefighters
Community Credit Union, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-11781 (S.D. N.Y.,
December 24, 2019), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief arising from Defendant's assessing of a $30 ATM/VCC
Not-Sufficient-Funds fees on transactions that do not actually
overdraw checking accounts and multiple "Returned Item" fees on a
single transaction in breach of contract.
Gibbs and the Troys both have checking accounts with Firefighters
Community Credit Union, a credit union with 8 locations in Ohio
that provides retail account services to its members. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Alyson Steele Beridon, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
425 Walnut St. Suite 2315
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (513) 381-2224
Email: alysonb@bsj firm.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Martin F. Schubert, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com
martys@bsjfirm.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
JOHNSON FIRM
610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 372-1300
Email: chris@yourattorney.com
FLORIDA: Hall Seeks Certification of Class of FCCC Residents
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled WENDALL HALL v. CHAD POPPELL
AND DONALD SAWER, Case No. 2:19-cv-00878-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla.), moves
for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
In December 2019, the Plaintiff filed this civil action complaint
against the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants'
disciplinary behavior management policies are punishing him for his
diagnosed mental abnormalities or personality disorders and that
these policies have a punitive objective, creating a punitive
environment for the Plaintiff, a civilly committed alleged sexual
violent predator. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants
violate tentative due process of law of the U.S. Constitution's
14th Amendment.
Chad Poppell is the Secretary of the Florida Department of Children
and Families (DCF). Donald Sawer is the administrator of the
Florida Civil Commitment Center.
Mr. Hall contends that the Defendants' disciplinary behavior
management policies are enforced and applied on every resident
residing at FCCC, which has over 600 residents that violate its
disciplinary rules or whose behavior is not in compliance with
facility policies. He asserts that most or many of the FCCC
residents are either ignorant of their claims in this case or are
not schooled in the law on these claims and lack a basic education
on these legal claims that affects all residents.
If the Court certifies his lawsuit as a class action on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated FCCC residents, then the
Court should appoint a counsel or a licensed attorney to represent
them, the Plaintiff avers.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of
similarly situated FCCC residents, appoint a class counsel and/or
consolidate cases with similar claims filed in the Court by FCCC
residents.
The Plaintiff, at FCCC, in Arcadia, Florida, appears pro se.[CC]
FORD MOTOR: Faces Marino Suit Over Defect in Auto Transmissions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Marino, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-10048 (D. Mass.,
Jan. 10, 2020), is brought on behalf of persons, who purchased or
leased Model Year 2017-2020 Ford F-150 vehicles, which were
designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold or leased by
the Defendant or the Defendant's parent, subsidiary, or affiliates,
that have transmission defect.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant knew or should have known
that the Vehicles contain one or more design and/or manufacturing
defects, including defects contained in the Vehicles' 10R80, a
ten-speed automatic transmission that can shift harshly and
erratically, causing the vehicle to jerk, lunge, and hesitate
between gears.
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 Plaintiff asserts. He contends that Ford refuses to replace or
repair the Transmissions and merely states that the abrupt and
harsh shifting is normal. Prior to purchasing or leasing the
Vehicles, the Plaintiff avers he and other Class Members did not
know that the Vehicles would abruptly and harshly shift due to the
Transmission Defect and cause their vehicles to unexpectedly surge,
hesitate, and jerk.
Had Plaintiff and Class Members known about the Transmission Defect
at the time of sale or lease, as well as the associated costs
related to the Transmission Defect, they would not have purchased
or leased the Class Vehicles or would have paid less for them. As a
result of their reliance on Defendant's omissions and/or
misrepresentations, owners and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles
have suffered ascertainable loss of money, property, and/or loss in
value of their Class Vehicle, says the complaint.
Mr. Marino leased a 2019 Ford F-150 Sport.
The Defendant designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold,
and leased Model Year 2017-2020 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with
the 10R80, a 10-speed automatic transmission designed and
manufactured by Ford.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex R. Straus, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
16748 McCormick Street
Los Angeles, CA 91436
Phone: (310) 450-9689
Facsimile: (310) 496-3176
Email: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com
- and –
Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
First Tennessee Plaza
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Phone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
- and –
John R. Fabry, Esq.
Luis Munoz, Esq.
THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
1717 N. Interstate Highway 35, Suite 305
Round Rock, TX 78664
Phone: (512) 671-7277
Facsimile: (512) 238-0275
Email: jfabry@carlsonattorneys.com
lmunoz@carlsonattorneys.com
- and –
Sidney F. Robert, Esq.
BRENT COON AND ASSOCIATES
300 Fannin, Suite 200
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 225-1682
Facsimile: (713) 225-1785
Email: sidney.robert@bcoonlaw.com
FREE STATE: Fails to Pay Contractors' Overtime Wage, Johnson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FREE STATE MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, Case No.
5:20-cv-00197-EGS (E.D. Pa., Jan. 10, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant have unlawfully failed to pay the Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated construction contractors overtime compensation
pursuant to the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
Mr. Johnson, who was hired by the Defendant as a Construction
Contractor, alleges that he regularly worked more than 40 hours per
week, but was not properly compensated such that he was not paid an
overtime premium at 1.5 times the regular rate of pay for each hour
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. He contends that the
Defendant unlawfully misclassified him and the Class Plaintiffs as
independent contractors under the FLSA and PMWA.
The Defendant is a limited liability company organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Murphy, Esq.
Michael Groh, Esq.
MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 267-273-1054
Facsimile: 215-525-0210
Email: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
GENESCO INC: Settles Indiana & Massachusetts Suits for $1.2MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Genesco Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended November 2, 2019, that the Company has reached an
agreement in principle in the "Chen and Salas Action", and
"Massachusetts lawsuits".
On May 19, 2017, two former employees of the Company's former Hat
World subsidiary filed a putative class and collective action, Chen
and Salas v. Genesco Inc., et al., in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of the FLSA
and certain Illinois and New York wages and hours laws, including,
among others, failure to pay overtime to store managers, and also
seeking back pay, damages, statutory penalties, and declaratory and
injunctive relief.
On March 8, 2018, the court granted the Company's motion to
transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana.
On March 9, 2018, a former employee of the Company's former Hat
World subsidiary filed a putative class action in the Superior
Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts claiming violations of
the Massachusetts Overtime Law, M.G.L.C. 151 Section 1A, by failing
to pay overtime to employees classified as store managers, and
seeking restitution, an incentive award, treble damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company has reached an agreement in principle to settle the
Chen and Salas and Massachusetts matters for payment of attorneys'
fees and administrative costs totaling $0.4 million plus total
payments to members of the plaintiff class who opt to participate
in the settlement of up to $0.8 million.
The proposed settlement is subject to approval by the court.
The Company does not expect that the proposed settlement will have
a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of
operations.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Genesco Inc. sell shoes and hats. It operates Journeys, Journeys
Kidz, and Shi by Journeys stores that offer footwear for young men,
women, and children. It also operates Underground Station, Jarman,
Hat World, Lids, Hat Shack, Hat Zone, Head Quarters, Cap
Connection, Lids Kids, and Johnston & Murphy. The company was
founded in 1925 and is based in Nashville.
GERONIMOS GRILL: Rodriguez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julio Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GERONIMOS GRILL, INC., and LOUIE A. DIMITRELOS,
individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-20107-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 9,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants have failed to compensate similarly situated
employees in accordance with the FLSA by depriving them of the
FLSA's required overtime premium, says the complaint. Despite
having knowledge of the Plaintiff's overtime hours and pay
structure, the Defendant improperly calculated the Plaintiff's
overtime premium pay rate. As such, the Plaintiff seeks, and the
Defendants owe, the halftime premium for each hour of overtime
worked, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff Rodriguez worked as a non-exempt cook for the
Defendants.
The Defendants operate a restaurant and bar in Broward County,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Freddy Perera, Esq.
Valerie Barnhart, Esq.
Bayardo E. Aleman, Esq.
Brody Shulman, Esq.
PERERA BARNHART ALEMAN
12555 Orange Drive, Second Floor
Davie, FL 33330
Phone: 786.485.5232
Email: freddy@pererabarnhart.com
valerie@pererabarnhart.com
bayardo@pererabarnhart.com
brody@pererabarnhart.com
GREEN DOT: Block & Leviton Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockesq.com), a securities litigation
firm representing investors and whistleblowers nationwide, informs
investors that there has been a class action lawsuit filed against
Green Dot Corp (GDOT) and certain of its officers alleging
violations of the federal securities laws. Class members interested
in serving as lead plaintiff are required to move for appointment
by February 17, 2020 and are encouraged to contact Block & Leviton
LLP to learn more.
The class action complaint, which was filed in the Central District
of California and captioned Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp., et. al.,
No. 1:19-cv-05949 (C.D. Cal.), alleges that Defendants misled
investors and failed to disclose that Green Dot's efforts at
attracting "high value" customers to its consumer banking products
were resulting in the loss of so-called "low value" or "one-time
use" customers - an important revenue stream for the Company.
The truth emerged on November 7, 2019, when Green Dot released its
financial results for the third quarter and nine months period
ended September 30, 2019. During the conference call to discuss the
results, Green Dot's CEO disclosed that there was a continuing
decline of accounts in its active consumer business of
approximately 620,000 which were mostly "one-time use accounts."
On this news, the Company's stock price declined from $29.95 per
share to a close of $24.54 per share in a single day of trading, a
drop of approximately 18%.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Green Dot securities between
May 9, 2018 and November 7, 2019 and have questions about your
legal rights, or possess information relevant to this matter, you
are encouraged to contact attorney Mark Delaney at (617) 398-5600,
by email at mdelaney@blockesq.com, or by visiting
http://shareholder.law/gdot
Block & Leviton LLP was recently ranked 4th among securities
litigation firms by ISS for recoveries in 2017. The firm represents
many of the nation's largest institutional investors and numerous
individual investors in securities litigation throughout the
country. Indeed, its lawyers have recovered billions of dollars for
its clients.
Contact:
Mark Delaney, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
Tel: (617) 398-5600 phone
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Email: mark@blockesq.com
[GN]
GREEN DOT: Gross Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in publicly traded Green
Dot Corporation.
Shareholders who purchased shares during the dates listed are
encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff
appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to
partake in any recovery.
Green Dot Corporation (GDOT)
Investors Affected : May 9, 2018 - November 7, 2019
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Green Dot Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Green Dot's strategy to attract "high-value"
long-term customers was at the expense of "one and done" customers;
(2) Green Dot's "one and done" customers represented a significant
source of revenues in its legacy segment; (3) consequently, Green
Dot's strategy was self-sabotaging; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' statements about its business and operations
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/green-dot-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=4973&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock.
Contact:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770
E-mail: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
[GN]
GRUBHUB INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against publicly-traded Grubhub Inc.
You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the link below
or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations
Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at
212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its
choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
Grubhub Inc. (NYSE: GRUB)
Class Period: July 30, 2019 - October 28, 2019
Deadline: January 21, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/grub
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) customer orders were actually declining, despite the
massive investments the Company had made to spur demand for and use
of its platform; (2) Grubhub's new customer additions were
generating significantly lower revenues as compared to historic
cohorts because these customers were more prone to using competitor
platforms; (3) Grubhub's vaunted business model under which it
secured exclusive restaurant partnerships had failed, and Grubhub
needed to engage in the same aggressive non-partnered sales tactics
embraced by its competitors to generate significant revenue growth;
(4) Grubhub was required to spend substantial additional capital in
order to grow revenues and retain market share in the face of
heightened competitive dynamics and market saturation, eviscerating
the Company's profitability; and (5) as a result, Grubhub's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
Contact:
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Tel: 212-697-6484
E-mail: info@bgandg.com
peretz@bgandg.com
[GN]
HARBOR INN: Faces Ramashka Suit Over Fraudulent Federal Tax Forms
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Ramashka, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
tipped employees v. HARBOR INN, INC., SHEREE MUSSON, and MARK
MUSSON, Case No. 1:20-cv-00061-BPG (D. Md., Jan. 9, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants for willfully issuing false and
fraudulent federal tax forms.
The Defendants were responsible to submit accurate wage statements
for the Plaintiff to the IRS. The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants willfully and knowingly filed false tax forms that
misstated her wages earned for each year of employment that she
worked for the Defendants. The Defendants knowingly filed false
W-2s with the IRS concerning her employment wages and misstated the
amount paid in fact, and the amount owed in fact, to the IRS, Ms.
Ramashka asserts.
Ms. Ramashka was employed by the Defendants in 2014 and three years
off and from 2015 through October 2018.
Harbor Inn, Inc. is a Maryland based, for-profit corporation, that
operates the Harbor Inn Bar located in Ocean City, Maryland.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard P. Neuworth, Esq.
Devan M. Wang, Esq.
LEBAU & NEUWORTH, LLC
606 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 201
Towson, MD 21204
Phone: 443.273.1202
Fax: 410.296.8660
Email: rn@joblaws.net
dw@joblaws.net
HEWLETT PACKARD: Demurrer in Ross and Rogus Suit Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December
13, 2019, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2019, that the
court has denied HPE's demurrer as to the claims of the putative
class and granted the demurrer as to the claims of the individual
plaintiffs in the case, Ross and Rogus v. Hewlett Packard
Enterprise Company.
On November 8, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara alleging
that HPE pays its California-based female employees "systemically
lower compensation" than HPE pays male employees performing
substantially similar work.
The complaint alleges various California state law claims,
including California's Equal Pay Act, Fair Employment and Housing
Act, and Unfair Competition Law, and seeks certification of a
California-only class of female employees employed in certain
"Covered Positions."
The complaint seeks damages, statutory and civil penalties,
attorneys' fees and costs.
On April 2, 2019, HPE filed a demurrer to all causes of action and
an alternative motion to strike portions of the complaint. On July
2, 2019, the court denied HPE's demurrer as to the claims of the
putative class and granted HPE's demurrer as to the claims of the
individual plaintiffs.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology
company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT,
Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments.
The company serves small and medium-sized businesses and large
enterprises. It has strategic alliance with ABB Ltd. Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered
in Palo Alto, California.
HEXO CORP: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit have been filed on behalf of shareholders of
publicly-traded HEXO Corp. (NYSE: HEXO). Investors have until the
deadline listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
HEXO Corp. (NYSE: HEXO)
Class Period: January 25, 2019 - November 15, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 27, 2020
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 HEXO's reported inventory was misstated as the
Company was failing to write down or write off obsolete product
that no longer had value; (2) that HEXO was engaging in
channel-stuffing in order to inflate its revenue figures and meet
or exceed revenue guidance provided to investors; (3) that HEXO was
cultivating cannabis at its facility in Niagara, Ontario that was
not appropriately licensed by Health Canada; and (4) that as a
result, HEXO's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
To be a member of these class actions, 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 these class actions, 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, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
Contact:
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Tel: 215-638-4847, 888-638-4847
Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com
Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
[GN]
HP INC: Appeal in Jackson Class Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2019, for the fiscal year
ended October 31, 2019, that the appeal from a court ruling in the
case, Jackson, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, is
still pending.
This putative nationwide class action was filed on July 24, 2017 in
federal district court in San Jose, California.
The plaintiffs purport to bring the lawsuit on behalf of themselves
and other similarly situated African-Americans and individuals over
the age of 40. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in
a pattern and practice of racial and age discrimination in lay-offs
and promotions. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
September 29, 2017.
On January 12, 2018, the defendants moved to transfer the matter to
the federal district court in the Northern District of Georgia. The
defendants also moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds and
to strike certain aspects of the proposed class definition. The
Court dismissed the action on the basis of improper venue.
On July 23, 2018, the plaintiffs refiled the case in the Northern
District of Georgia. On August 9, 2018, the plaintiffs also filed a
notice of appeal of the dismissal order with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On October 1, 2018, the
Georgia court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion to stay and
administratively close the Georgia action until the Ninth Circuit
appeal is decided.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.
HP INC: Bid to Dismiss Parziale Class Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2019, for the fiscal year
ended October 31, 2019, that the company has filed a motion to
dismiss the class action suit entitled, Parziale v. HP, Inc.
On August 27, 2019, a purported consumer class action was filed
against HP arising out of the supplies authentication protocol in
certain OfficeJet printers.
The complaint, which was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, captioned Parziale v. HP,
Inc., alleges two causes of action under Florida Consumer
Protection statutes: (1) violation of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act, F.S.A. Sections 501.201 et seq., and
(2) violation of the Florida Misleading Advertisement Law, F.S.A.
Sections 817.41 et seq.
The named plaintiff, a Florida resident who purchased OfficeJet
printers in Florida, seeks to represent a nationwide class of "all
United States Citizens who, between the applicable statute of
limitations and the present, had an HP Printer that was modified to
reject third party ink cartridges or refilled HP ink cartridges."
On October 30, 2019, HP moved to dismiss the complaint. On November
13, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding the
following new causes of action to the case: (1) violation of the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1030 et seq., (2)
trespass to chattels, and (3) tortious interference with business
relations.
HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.
HP INC: Forsyth Class Action Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2019, for the fiscal year
ended October 31, 2019, that the class action suit entitled,
Forsyth, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, remains
stayed.
This is a purported class and collective action filed on August 18,
2016 in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, against HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging the
defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment
Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,
California public policy and the California Business and
Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them
with younger workers.
Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide collective class action
under the ADEA comprised of all U.S. residents employed by
defendants who had their employment terminated pursuant to a
workforce reduction ("WFR") plan on or after May 23, 2012 and who
were 40 years of age or older.
Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Rule 23 class under California
law comprised of all persons 40 years or older employed by
defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a
WFR plan on or after May 23, 2012. Following a partial motion to
dismiss, a motion to strike and a motion to compel arbitration that
the defendants filed in November 2016, the plaintiffs amended their
complaint.
New plaintiffs were added, but the plaintiffs agreed that the class
period for the nationwide collective action should be shortened and
now starts on December 9, 2014. On January 30, 2017, the defendants
filed another partial motion to dismiss and motions to compel
arbitration as to several of the plaintiffs.
On March 20, 2017, the defendants filed additional motions to
compel arbitration as to a number of the opt-in plaintiffs. On
September 20, 2017, the Court granted the motions to compel
arbitration as to the plaintiffs and opt-ins who signed WFR release
agreements, and also stayed the entire case until the arbitrations
are completed.
On November 30, 2017, three named plaintiffs and twelve opt-in
plaintiffs filed a single arbitration demand. An additional
arbitration claimant was added later by stipulation.
On December 22, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to (1) stay the
case pending arbitrations and (2) enjoin the demanded arbitration
and require each plaintiff to file a separate arbitration demand.
On February 6, 2018, the Court granted the motion to stay and
denied the motion to enjoin. Pre-arbitration mediation proceedings
took place on October 4 and 5, 2018, and the claims of all 16
arbitration claimants were resolved. Between November 2018 and
April 2019, an additional 154 individuals filed consents to
opt‐in to the action as party‐plaintiffs.
Of the new opt-ins, 145 signed separation agreements that include
class waivers and mandatory arbitration provisions. The addition of
these opt-ins brings the total number of named and opt-in
plaintiffs to 193.
Mediation proceedings took place in June 2019 with respect to the
145 opt-ins who signed separation agreements, and the parties are
continuing to engage in settlement discussions.
The stay of the litigation remains in place.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Approves Plan of Allocation in Merryman Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BENJAMIN MICHAEL MERRYMAN, AMY WHITAKER MERRYMAN
TRUST, B MERRYMAN AND A MERRYMAN 4TH GENERATION REMAINDER TRUST
CHESTER COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JPMORGAN
CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-09188-VEC
(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York approved the Plaintiffs' proposed
plan of allocation of the Net Settlement Fund created by the Class
Settlement.
Judge Caproni found and concluded that the Plan of Allocation is,
in all respects, fair and reasonable to the Settlement Class.
Any appeal or any challenge affecting the Court's approval
regarding any plan of allocation of the Net Settlement Fund will in
no way disturb or affect the finality of the Order and Final
Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Bt6GND from Leagle.com.
Benjamin Michael Merryman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Christopher
Mulveny, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Ethan J. Barlieb,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Geoffrey Coyle Jarvis, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jennifer L. Enck, Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP, Jonathan Flexer Neumann, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, Joseph H. Meltzer -- jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP & Sharan Nirmul -- snirmul@ktmc.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.
Amy Whitaker Merryman Trust, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated & B Merryman and A Merryman 4th
Generation Remainder Trust, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel
Christopher Mulveny, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Ethan J.
Barlieb, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Geoffrey Coyle Jarvis,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jennifer L. Enck, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jonathan Flexer Neumann, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, Joseph H. Meltzer, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, Zachary Arbitman, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP &
Sharan Nirmul, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.
Chester County Retirement Board, Plaintiff, represented by Sharan
Nirmul, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.
Chester County Employees Retirement Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Geoffrey Coyle Jarvis, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jennifer
L. Enck, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jonathan Flexer
Neumann, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Joseph H. Meltzer,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Zachary Arbitman, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP & Sharan Nirmul, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP.
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Susan Leslie
Saltzstein, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Franklin B.
Velie, Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht, LLP, Jeffrey S. Geier,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Jonathan G. Kortmansky --
jkortmansky@piercebainbridge.com -- Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price &
Hecht, LLP & Marco Enrique Schnabl -- marco.schnabl@skadden.com --
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.
JUUL LABS: Ledbetter Product Liability Suit Moved to N.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case titled Rebecca Ledbetter, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.;
Fictitious Defendants A-DD, Case No. 68-cv-2019-901030, was removed
from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on Jan. 9,
2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00032-JEO to the
proceeding.
In her Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts 13 counts of claims against
JLI, and three against Altria (noted with an asterisk): (1)
Negligence*; (2) Wantonness; (3) Breach of Implied Warranty; (4)
Strict Product Liability--Failure to Warn; (5) Strict Product
Liability--Design Defect; (6) Fraudulent Suppression; (7)
Fraudulent Misrepresentation; (8) Unlawful Trade Practice; (9)
Unjust Enrichment; (10) Violation of California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act; (11) Violation of California False Advertising Law;
(12) Violation of California Unfair Competition law; and (13) Civil
Conspiracy.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
William H. Brooks, Esq.
Lana A. Olson, Esq.
Jeffrey P. Doss, Esq.
Christopher C. Yearout, Esq.
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, LLC
400 20th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: (205) 581-0700
Facsimile: (205) 581- 0799
Email: wbrooks@lightfootlaw.com
lolson@lightfootlaw.com
jdoss@lightfootlaw.com
cyearout@lightfootlaw.com
- and -
Austin Schwing, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
555 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
Phone: (415) 393-8210
Facsimile: (415) 374-8458
Email: aschwing@gibsondunn.com
- and -
R. Bruce Barze, Jr., Esq.
Lisa McCrary, Esq.
BARZE TAYLOR NOLES LOWTHER LLC
Lakeshore Park Plaza
2204 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 330
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: (205) 872-1032
Email: bbarze@btnllaw.com
lmccrary@btnllaw.com
- and -
Scott A. Powell, Esq.
Bruce J. McKee, Esq.
Don McKenna, Esq.
Christopher S. Randolph, Jr., Esq.
Tempe D. Smith, Esq.
HARE, WYNN, NEWELL & NEWTON, LLP
2025 Third Avenue North, Suite 800
Birmingham, AL 35203
Email: scott@hwnn.com
bruce@hwnn.com
chris@hwnn.com
don@hwnn.com
tempe@hwnn.com
KENCO LOGISTIC: Mintun Biometrics Row Removed to C.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kathy Mintun, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kenco Logistic Services,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2019L105 (Ill. Cir., March 11, 2019) was
removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
Illinois on December 26, 2019, under Case No. 19-cv-02348.
King seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful
activity related to the capture, collection, storage and use of
biometrics, statutory damages together with costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.
Kenco Logistic Services cite that the class easily exceeds the
100-member requirement imposed by the Class Action Fairness Act,
that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and that
Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of different states, as basis
for removal. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Tel: (314) 833-4825
Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com
plesko@pwcklegal.com
Kenco Logistic Services is represented by:
Jody Kahn Mason, Esq.
Jason A. Selvey, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel: (312) 787-4949
Fax: (312) 787-4995
Email: Jody.Mason@jacksonlewis.com
Jason.Selvey@jacksonlewis.com
KRONOS INC: Two Claims in Namuwonge Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AISHA NAMUWONGE, individually, and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. KRONOS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03239 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Sharon Johnson
Coleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part the
Kronos' motion to dismiss the class action complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Kronos is a leading provider in workforce management software and
services. The corporation is best known for its devices that
enable employers to process payroll and track employee time.
Kronos provides Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. with an employee
timekeeping system. Brookdale operates and owns over 1,000 senior
living communities in the United States.
Namuwonge began working as a utility worker for a Brookdale
facility in Cook County, Illinois on Feb. 11, 2019. Brookdale
requires employees to enroll in its database system, supplied by
Kronos, that scans their fingerprint as a means of authenticating
and monitoring time worked. Namuwonge and other Brookdale
employees scanned their fingerprint each time they clocked in and
clocked out for work. Brookdale subsequently stored Namuwonge's
fingerprint data in its Krono database. Namuwonge was never
provided with nor signed a written release allowing Kronos or
Brookdale to collect, store, use, or disseminate her biometric
data.
Based on information and belief, Namuwonge alleges that Brookdale
failed to inform their employees that they disclose the employees'
fingerprint data to third party vendor Kronos. Namuwonge further
alleges, also based on information and belief, that Kronos failed
to inform Brookdale employees that Kronos disclosed their
fingerprints to other third parties, which host data in their data
centers. Kronos failed to provide Brookdale employees with a
written, publicly available policy explaining their retention
schedules and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric data
in their possession. Namuwonge further alleges that because Kronos
neither publishes a BIPA-mandated data-retention policy nor
discloses the purposes for their collection and use of biometric
data, Brookdale employees have no idea whether any Defendant sells,
discloses, re-discloses, or otherwise disseminates their biometric
data.
On April 5, 2019, Namuwonge initiated the class action lawsuit
against Kronos in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
alleging three separate violations of BIPA's provisions: 740 ILCS
14/15(a), (b), and (d). Namuwonge, individually, and on behalf of
the class, seeks to recover liquidated damages of $1,000 or actual
damages, whichever is greater, for negligent violations and $5,000
or actual damages, whichever is greater, for intentional or
reckless violations. Kronos removed the lawsuit to federal court.
Now, Kronos moves to dismiss the class action complaint for failure
to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
First, Kronos contends that Namuwonge failed to adequately plead
that Kronos actually possessed Brookdale employees' biometric data
as required under provisions 15(a) and 15(d).
Because Namuwonge alleges that Kronos did not publish a
data-retention policy and it is unclear from the allegations when
any retention policy was formulated relative to when Kronos
possessed the Brookdale employees' biometric information, Judge
Coleman finds the allegations plausible to state a claim.
Namuwonge's claim is not temporarily restricted. Furthermore, this
outcome is consistent with the Illinois Supreme Court's statements
in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entm't Corp. that BIPA's enforcement
mechanism is crucial to ensure compliance by private entities. The
Judge will deny the motion to dismiss Count I brought regarding
section 15(a).
Next, Kronos asserts that Namuwonge fails to allege a section 15(b)
claim because she fails to plead facts placing Kronos within any
category of collectors of biometric data under BIPA. Namuwonge
responds that any private entity that collected biometric data must
receive informed consent, which encompasses Kronos.
Judge Coleman finds that although Namuwonge asserts that each
Defendant systematically and automatically collected, used, stored
and disseminated her biometric identifiers, and that she had her
biometric identifiers collected by the Defendants, the more precise
allegation referred to in Section II makes clear that Brookdale
collected the fingerprints using a system that Kronos supplied to
Brookdale. Together, these allegations do not plausibly allege
that Kronos collected, captured, or otherwise obtained Namuwonge's
biometric information. Without more, Namuwonge does not plausibly
allege a violation of section 15(b). In light of this, Judge
Coleman does not address the parties' arguments regarding whether
section 15(b) requires a private entity other than an employer to
secure an executed written release, and the Judge will grant
Kronos' motion to dismiss the section 15(b) claim.
Finally, Kronos asserts that Namuwonge failed to plead negligence,
recklessness, or intent, which are additional grounds for
dismissal. It argues in the alternative that the Court should
strike Namuwonge's prayer for the $5,000 statutory reward based on
a reckless or intentional violation. Namuwonge has alleged that
Kronos failed to maintain a satisfactory biometric data retention
policy, despite BIPA taking effect more than 10 years ago. Judge
Coleman finds that the Plaintiff does not allege any substantive
details regarding whether the allegations were reckless or
intentional. Thus, Namuwonge's claim for damages based on
intentional and reckless conduct is dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Coleman granted in part and denied
in part Kronos' Motion to Dismiss. The Judge granted the Motion as
Counts II and III without prejudice and damages for intentional and
reckless conduct are stricken without prejudice. The motion is
denied as to Count I. If Namuwonge believes that she can cure the
deficiencies in her complaint, she may file amended papers with the
Court without delay.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2019 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/dqIoIv from Leagle.com.
Aisha Namuwonge, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine T.
Mitchell, Stephan Zouras, LLP, James B. Zouras, Stephan Zouras, LLP
& Ryan F. Stephan, Stephan, Zouras, LLP.
Kronos, Inc., Defendant, represented by Melissa Anne Siebert --
masiebert@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Erin Bolan Hines
-- ehines@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. & Ian Macaulay
Hansen -- ihansen@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.l.p..
LADENBURG THALMANN: Scarantino Challenges Sale to Advisor Group
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SCARANTINO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. LADENBURG THALMANN FINANCIAL SERVICES INC.,
HENRY C. BEINSTEIN, GLENN C. DAVIS, BRIAN S. GENSON, RICHARD M.
KRASNO, RICHARD J. LAMPEN, MICHAEL S. LIEBOWITZ, HOWARD M. LORBER,
JACQUELINE M. SIMKIN, MARK ZEITCHICK, ADAM MALAMED, ADVISOR GROUP
HOLDINGS, INC., and HARVEST MERGER SUB, INC., Case No.
1:19-cv-02266-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 12, 2019), arises from a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Ladenburg will be acquired by
Advisor Group Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Harvest
Merger Sub, Inc.
On November 11, 2019, Ladenburg Thalmann's Board of Directors
caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger
with Advisor Group. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
Ladenburg Thalmann's stockholders will receive $3.50 in cash for
each share of Ladenburg Thalmann common stock they own.
On December 6, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy
Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement.
The Plaintiff contends that the Proxy Statement: omits material
information regarding the company's financial projections and the
analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor in connection
with the Proposed Transaction, Jefferies LLC; and fails to disclose
whether the Company entered into any non-disclosure agreements that
contained standstill and/or "don't ask, don't waive" provisions
that are or were preventing the counterparties from submitting
superior offers to acquire the Company.
Without the omitted information, stockholders may have the mistaken
belief that, if these potentially interested parties wished to come
forward with a superior offer, they are or were permitted to do so,
when in fact they are or were contractually prohibited from doing
so, the Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff is the owner of Ladenburg Thalmann common stock.
Ladenburg Thalmann is a diversified financial services company. The
company's subsidiaries include industry-leading independent
advisory and brokerage firms Securities America, Triad Advisors,
Securities Service Network, Investacorp, and KMS Financial
Services, as well as Premier Trust, Ladenburg Thalmann Asset
Management, Highland Capital Brokerage, a leading independent life
insurance brokerage company and full-service annuity processing and
marketing company, and Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc., an investment
bank that has been a member of the New York Stock Exchange for over
135 years. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of
the Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
Brian D. Long, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
E-mail: rm@maniskas.com
LEAD GENERATION: Reynoso's Cert. Bid OK'd; April 30 Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Mary M. Rowland grants the Plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify a class in the lawsuit captioned Servando
Reynoso, et al. v. Lead Generation Services, et al., Case No.
1:19−cv−04025 (N.D. Ill.).
According to the Court's Notification of Docket Entry, hearing was
held on the Plaintiffs/Counter−Claim Defendants Servando Reynoso
and Kailei Bond's motion to dismiss and/or motions for more defined
statement. For the reasons stated on the record, the Plaintiffs'
motion is denied.
Judge Rowland also rules that the Plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify a class is granted. Notice will not be
permitted by facsimile and there will be no tolling, Judge Rowland
says. Judge Rowland adds that parties are to confer and work out
the Notice, which will be sent to the Court's proposed order
mailbox by January 17, 2020, for approval.
Status hearing is set for April 30, 2020, at 9:30 a.m.[CC]
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend Gathmann-Landini Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended November 3, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Rebecca
Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA inc.
On October 9, 2015, certain current and former hourly employees of
the Company filed a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of
New York entitled Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA
inc.
On December 2, 2015, the case was moved to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated various New York
labor codes by failing to pay all earned wages, including overtime
compensation. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of
damages.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
lululemon athletica inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
distributes, and retails athletic apparel and accessories for
women, men, and female youth. It operates through two segments,
Company-Operated Stores and Direct to Consumer. lululemon athletica
inc. was founded in 1998 and is based in Vancouver, Canada.
MARQUEE BROADCASTING: Price Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Candace Price, individually & on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MARQUEE BROADCASTING, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00006-GNS
(W.D. Ky., Jan. 9, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendant does not pay overtime to any of its employees titled
Reported or Anchor or both, says the complaint. The Defendant
neither disclosed to its employees titled Reporter/Anchor that
their salaries are intended to cover hours over forty in a workweek
nor that they will be paid overtime. The Plaintiff alleges the
these employees worked more than 40 hours in a week in more than
one workweek without payment of overtime wages.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Bowling Green, Kentucky.
The Defendant is engaged in the broadcasting business and produces
television news programming.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
MAZAHERI & MAZAHERI
325 N St Paul St., Suite 3100
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 461-9458
Email: bernie@thelaborfirm.com
MEDLEY CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Lax and Dicristino Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Medley Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 16, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend the lawsuits, Helene Lax v. Brook Taube, et
al., Index No. 650503/2019, and Richard Dicristino, et al. v. Brook
Taube, et al., Index No. 650510/2019, pending in New York state
court.
On January 25, 2019, two purported class actions were commenced in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, by
alleged stockholders of Medley Capital Corporation, captioned,
respectively, Helene Lax v. Brook Taube, et al., Index No.
650503/2019, and Richard Dicristino, et al. v. Brook Taube, et al.,
Index No. 650510/2019.
Named as defendants in each complaint are Brook Taube, Seth Taube,
Jeffrey Tonkel, Arthur S. Ainsberg, Karin Hirtler-Garvey, John E.
Mack, Mark Lerdal, Richard T. Allorto, Jr., Medley Capital
Corporation, Medley Management Inc., Sierra Income Corporation, and
Sierra Management, Inc. The complaints in each of the New York
Actions allege that the individuals named as defendants breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger of
MCC with and into Sierra, and that the other defendants aided and
abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.
Compensatory damages in unspecified amounts are sought.
On February 27, 2019, the Court entered a stipulated scheduling
order requiring that defendants respond to the complaints 45 days
following the later of (a) the stockholder vote on the proposed
merger and (b) plaintiffs' filing of a consolidated, amended
complaint. A preliminary conference is scheduled to take place on
December 17, 2019.
The defendants believe the claims asserted in the New York Actions
are without merit and they intend to defend these lawsuits
vigorously.
Medley Capital said, "At this time, we are unable to determine
whether an unfavorable outcome from these matters is probable or
remote or to estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if
any."
Medley Capital Corporation is a business development company. The
fund seeks to invest in privately negotiated debt and equity
securities of small and middle market companies. The Company is
based in New York, New York.
MEDLEY CAPITAL: Parties at Odds on Contingent Fee Award
-------------------------------------------------------
Medley Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 16, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that the parties in
the settlement of the lawsuit over the Company's merger deal with
Sierra Income Corporation are in disagreement on the computation of
the Contingent Fee Award, and have submitted different forms of the
proposed form of order and final judgment.
On August 9, 2018, the Company entered into a definitive agreement
to merge with Sierra Income Corporation ("Sierra"). Pursuant to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 9, 2018, by and
between the Company and Sierra (the "MCC Merger Agreement"), the
Company would, on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth
in the MCC Merger Agreement, merge with and into Sierra, with
Sierra as the surviving entity (the "Combined Company") in the
merger (the "MCC Merger").
On February 11, 2019, a purported stockholder class action was
commenced in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by
FrontFour Capital Group LLC and FrontFour Master Fund, Ltd.
(together, "FrontFour"), captioned as FrontFour Capital Group LLC,
et al. v. Brook Taube et al., Case No. 2019-0100 against defendants
Brook Taube, Seth Taube, Jeff Tonkel, Mark Lerdal, Karin
Hirtler-Garvey, John E. Mack, Arthur S. Ainsberg, MDLY, Sierra, the
Company, MCC Advisors, Medley Group LLC, and Medley LLC.
The complaint, as amended on February 12, 2019, alleged that the
individuals named as defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company's stockholders in connection with the MCC Merger, and
that MDLY, Sierra, MCC Advisors, Medley Group LLC, and Medley LLC
aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.
The complaint sought to enjoin the vote of MCC stockholders on the
proposed merger and enjoin enforcement of certain provisions of the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 9, 2018, by and
between MCC and Sierra. The Court held a trial on the plaintiffs'
claims on March 6-7, 2019 and issued a Memorandum Opinion (the
"Decision") on March 11, 2019.
The Court denied the plaintiffs' requests to (i) permanently enjoin
the proposed merger and (ii) require the Company to conduct a
"shopping process" for the Company on terms proposed by the
plaintiffs in their complaint. The Court held that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties in entering into the
proposed merger, but rejected the plaintiffs' claim that Sierra
aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duties.
The Court ordered the defendants to issue corrective disclosures
consistent with the Decision, and enjoined a vote of the Company's
stockholders on the proposed merger until such disclosures have
been made and stockholders have had the opportunity to assimilate
this information.
On March 20, 2019, another purported stockholder class action was
commenced by Stephen Altman against Brook Taube, Seth Taube, Jeff
Tonkel, Arthur S. Ainsberg, Karin Hirtler-Garvey, Mark Lerdal, and
John E. Mack in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned Altman v. Taube, Case No. 2019-0219 (the "Altman
Action").
The complaint alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to stockholders of the Company in connection with the vote
of the Company's stockholders on the proposed mergers.
On April 8, 2019, the Court granted a stipulation consolidating the
FrontFour Action and the Altman Action, designating the amended
complaint in the FrontFour Action as the operative complaint, and
designating the plaintiffs in the FrontFour Action and their
counsel the lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel,
respectively.
On April 15, 2019, certain parties reached agreement on the
principal terms of a settlement of the FrontFour Action, which were
contained in a term sheet, dated April 15, 2019. On July 29, 2019,
MCC entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (and, as amended on
August 8, 2019, the "Stipulation") by and among the Company, Brook
Taube, Seth Taube, Jeff Tonkel, Mark Lerdal, Karin Hirtler-Garvey,
John E. Mack, Arthur S. Ainsberg, MDLY, MCC Advisors, Medley LLC
and Medley Group LLC (the "Medley Parties"), on the one hand, and
FrontFour, on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated
stockholders of the Company, on the other hand, in connection with
the FrontFour Action.
The Stipulation provides for the settlement of all claims brought
against the Medley Parties in the FrontFour Action. Under the
Stipulation, the Company agreed to seek the agreement and/or
consent of Sierra to effect certain amendments to (i) the MCC
Merger Agreement and (ii) the MDLY Merger Agreement (together with
the MCC Merger Agreement, the "Merger Agreements"), which have been
reflected in the amended and restated Merger Agreements annexed to
the Stipulation.
The Stipulation also provides for, if the MCC Merger is
consummated, the creation of a settlement fund, consisting of $17
million in cash and $30 million of Sierra stock, with the number of
shares of Sierra stock to be calculated using the pro forma net
asset value reported in the future proxy supplement describing the
amendments to the MCC Merger Agreement, which will be distributed
to eligible members of the Settlement Class (as defined in the
Stipulation).
Under the Stipulation, MDLY also consented to certain amendments to
the Merger Agreements that have been reflected in the amended and
restated Merger Agreements annexed to the Stipulation. In addition,
in connection with the Stipulation, on July 29, 2019, the Company
entered into a Governance Agreement with FrontFour Capital Group
LLC, FrontFour Master Fund, Ltd., FrontFour Capital Corp.,
FrontFour Opportunity Fund, David A. Lorber, Stephen E. Loukas and
Zachary R. George, pursuant to which, among other matters,
FrontFour is subject to customary standstill restrictions and
required to vote in favor of the MCC Merger at a meeting of
stockholders to approve the Amended MCC Merger Agreement.
The Stipulation also provides for mutual releases between and among
FrontFour and the Settlement Class, on the one hand, and the Medley
Parties, on the other hand, of all claims that were or could have
been asserted in the FrontFour Action. The Medley Parties will also
release all claims arising out of or relating to the prosecution
and settlement of the FrontFour Action and all claims that were or
could have been asserted (other than claims against the Highland
Parties, as defined in the Stipulation) in the litigation pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York captioned Medley Capital Corporation v. FrontFour Capital
Group LLC, et al., No. 1:19-cv-02055-LTS (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Federal
Action"), and FrontFour and the Settlement Class will release all
claims arising out of or relating to the prosecution and settlement
of the Federal Action.
The Stipulation further provides that the Company and FrontFour
shall work together in good faith to agree to supplemental
disclosures relating to the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreements consistent with the Decision.
The Stipulation is subject to the approval of the Court. On
September 26, 2019, FrontFour filed a motion seeking an order
approving the Stipulation, and also moved for the Court to award
plaintiffs' counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of $22 million
and expenses in the amount of $420,334.97 (the "Fee Application").
The Court held a hearing to consider the Stipulation and the Fee
Application on October 24, 2019.
On November 19, 2019, the Court issued a bench ruling approving the
Stipulation. The Court also awarded attorney's fees as follows: (i)
an award of $3,000,000 to lead plaintiffs' counsel and $75,000 to
counsel to plaintiff Stephen Altman (the "Therapeutics Fee Award")
and (ii) an award in an amount equal to 26% of the nominal value of
the settlement fund, grossed up to include the amount of the lead
plaintiffs' counsel's attorney's fees, and excluding the portion of
the fees borne by the class under the Amended MCC Merger Agreement,
as well as an award of $100,000 relating to the composition of the
board of directors of the post-Merger company (the "Contingent Fee
Award" and, together with the Therapeutics Fee Award, the "Fee
Awards").
The parties disagreed as to how to apply the formula that the Court
indicated will be used to calculate the Contingent Fee Award.
Accordingly, the parties submitted different forms of the proposed
form of order and final judgment, as applicable, for review and
entry by the Court, together with letter briefs setting forth their
respective interpretations of the Court's November 19, 2019 bench
ruling.
The Plaintiff contends that the amount of the Contingent Fee Award
is fixed at $14,540,888. Defendants contend that the amount will be
less than $14,540,888, but the actual amount cannot be determined
prior to closing. The Therapeutics Fee Award will be payable within
five (5) business days of the entry of an order and judgment by the
Court.
The Contingent Fee Award is contingent upon the closing of the MCC
Merger, and will be due within five business days of the closing of
the MCC Merger and establishment of the Settlement Fund. The Fee
Awards will be paid by MCC or its successor.
Medley Capital Corporation is a business development company. The
fund seeks to invest in privately negotiated debt and equity
securities of small and middle market companies. The Company is
based in New York, New York.
MEDLEY CAPITAL: RICO Suits Ongoing in Virginia & Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medley Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 16, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend class action lawsuits in Virginia and
Pennsylvania alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, and various other claims arising out of
the alleged payday lending activities of American Web Loan.
Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and
Seth Taube were named as defendants, along with other various
parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned as Royce
Solomon, Jodi Belleci, Michael Littlejohn, and Giulianna Lomaglio
v. American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Mark Curry, MacFarlane
Group, Inc., Sol Partners, Medley Opportunity Fund, II, LP, Medley
LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley
Group, LLC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube, DHI Computing Service, Inc.,
Middlemarch Partners, and John Does 1-100, filed on December 15,
2017, amended on March 9, 2018, and amended a second time on
February 15, 2019, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No.
4:17-cv-145 (hereinafter, "Class Action 1").
Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were
also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a
putative class action lawsuit captioned George Hengle and Lula
Williams v. Mark Curry, American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red
Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital
Corporation, filed February 13, 2018, in the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, as Case No.
3:18-cv-100 ("Class Action 2").
Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were
also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a
putative class action lawsuit captioned John Glatt, Sonji Grandy,
Heather Ball, Dashawn Hunter, and Michael Corona v. Mark Curry,
American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, filed
August 9, 2018 in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No.
4:18-cv-101 ("Class Action 3") (together with Class Action 1 and
Class Action 2, the "Virginia Class Actions").
Medley Opportunity Fund II LP was also named as a defendant, along
with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Christina Williams and Michael Stermel v. Red Stone, Inc.
(as successor in interest to MacFarlane Group, Inc.), Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP, Mark Curry, Brian McGowan, Vincent Ney, and
John Doe entities and individuals, filed June 29, 2018 and amended
July 26, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, as Case No. 2:18-cv-2747 (the
"Pennsylvania Class Action") (together with the Virginia Class
Actions, the "Class Action Complaints").
The plaintiffs in the Class Action Complaints filed their putative
class actions alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, and various other claims arising out of
the alleged payday lending activities of American Web Loan. The
claims against Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley
Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC,
Brook Taube, and Seth Taube (in Class Action 1, as amended); Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation (in Class
Action 2 and Class Action 3); and Medley Opportunity Fund II LP (in
the Pennsylvania Class Action), allege that those defendants in
each respective action exercised control over, or improperly
derived income from, and/or obtained an improper interest in,
American Web Loan's payday lending activities as a result of a loan
to American Web Loan. The loan was made by Medley Opportunity Fund
II LP in 2011.
American Web Loan repaid the loan from Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP in full in February of 2015, more than 1 year and 10 months
prior to any of the loans allegedly made by American Web Loan to
the alleged class plaintiff representatives in Class Action 1.
In Class Action 2, the alleged class plaintiff representatives have
not alleged when they received any loans from American Web Loan.
In Class Action 3, the alleged class plaintiff representatives
claim to have received loans from American Web Loan at various
times from February 2015 through April 2018.
In the Pennsylvania Class Action, the alleged class plaintiff
representatives claim to have received loans from American Web Loan
in 2017. By orders dated August 7, 2018 and September 17, 2018, the
Court presiding over the Virginia Class Actions consolidated those
cases for all purposes.
On October 12, 2018, Plaintiffs in Class Action 3 filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal of all claims, and on October 29, 2018,
Plaintiffs in Class Action 2 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal
of all claims.
Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc.,
Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube never made any loans
or provided financing to, or had any other relationship with,
American Web Loan. Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC,
Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group,
LLC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube are seeking indemnification from
American Web Loan, various affiliates, and other parties with
respect to the claims in the Class Action Complaints.
Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital
Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook
Taube, and Seth Taube believe the alleged claims in the Class
Action Complaints are without merit and they intend to defend these
lawsuits vigorously.
Medley Capital Corporation is a business development company. The
fund seeks to invest in privately negotiated debt and equity
securities of small and middle market companies. The Company is
based in New York, New York.
MEGATEL HOMES: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Lee Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quentin Cody Lee, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Megatel Homes, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00056-N
(N.D. Tex., Jan. 9, 2020), is brought against the Defendant
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act over improperly paid
overtime wages.
According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FLSA by
failing to pay its workers for all hours of work at the rates
required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff routinely worked more than 40
hours per week but was not paid overtime for doing this excessive
work. Instead, the Defendant misclassified its employees as exempt
from the protections of the FLSA and failed to pay the Plaintiff
one-and-a-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from March 2016 to May
2017.
Megatel Homes, LLC is a new home builder that builds homes in Texas
and elsewhere.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
Elizabeth Beck, Esq.
Travis Gasper, Esq.
LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
1910 Pacific Ave., Ste. 12000
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 749-1400
Fax: (214) 749-1010
Email: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
beck@l-b-law.com
gasper@l-b-law.com
- and -
Jill J. Weinberg, Esq.
WEINBERG LAW FIRM, PLLC
6425 Willow Creek Drive
Plano, TX 75093
Phone: (972) 403-3330
Email: jillwlfirm@gmail.com
MERIT MEDICAL: Brodsky & Smith Reminds of Feb. 3 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, reminds investors of the
deadline to file claims against Merit Medical Systems, Inc. (MMSI)
for possible breaches of Federal Securities law.
The Class Period commences on February 26, 2019, when Merit Medical
reported fourth quarter 2018 and fiscal year 2018 results and
established financial guidance for 2019, including core revenue
growth of 8%-10%.
According to the filed complaint, Merit Medical is a leading
manufacturer and marketer of proprietary disposable medical devices
used in interventional, diagnostic, and therapeutic procedures,
particularly in cardiology, radiology, oncology, critical care, and
endoscopy. During 2018, Merit Medical acquired three companies.
Specifically, in February 2018, the Company completed the
acquisition of Becton, Dickinson and Company and on November 13,
2018, the Company completed the acquisition of Cianna Medical, Inc.
("Cianna"), which makes products for the treatment of breast
cancer, for up to $200 million, making it Merit Medical's
largest-ever acquisition. Thereafter, in December 2018, the Company
completed its acquisition of Vascular Insights, LLC ("Vascular
Insights"), and acquired its ClariVein product, for up to $60
million.
On October 30, 2019, after the market closed, Merit Medical issued
a press release announcing its third quarter 2019 financial
results, reporting non-GAAP EPS of $0.28, well below consensus
estimates of $0.45, reducing fiscal year 2019 guidance, and
completely withdrawing fiscal year 2020 guidance. Following this
news, the Company's stock price declined more than 29%, from a
close of $29.11 per share on October 30, 2019 to a close of $20.66
per share on October 31, 2019.
The filed complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (a) the integrations of Cianna and Vascular
Insights, including their products, salespeople, and R&D
facilities, had caused operational disruptions and reduced sales
and were months behind schedule; (b) sales of acquired company
products had slowed substantially due to pre-acquisition pipeline
fill, in particular for Vascular Insights' products which, as late
as July 2019, had zero orders during fiscal year 2019; and (c) in
light of the foregoing, the Company's reported financial guidance
for fiscal 2019 and 2020 was made without a reasonable basis.
If you purchased shares of Merit Medical between February 26, 2019
and October 30, 2019 and wish to discuss the legal ramifications of
the investigation, or have any questions, you may e-mail or call
the law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC who will, without obligation
or cost to you, attempt to answer your questions. The deadline for
filing is February 3, 2020. You may contact Marc Ackerman, Esquire
or Jordan Schatz, Esquire at Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza,
Suite 510, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by visiting
http://www.brodskysmith.com/?post_type=cases&p=13407&preview=true,
or by calling toll free 877-534-2590.
Brodsky & Smith, LLC is a litigation law firm with extensive
expertise representing shareholders throughout the nation in
securities and class action lawsuits. The attorneys at Brodsky &
Smith have been appointed by numerous courts throughout the country
to serve as lead counsel in class actions and have successfully
recovered millions of dollars for our clients and shareholders.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
MERIT MEDICAL: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of
publicly-traded Merit Medical Systems, Inc. Investors have until
the deadline listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
Merit Medical Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: MMSI)
Class Period: February 26, 2019 - October 30, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 3, 2020
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 integrations of Cianna and Vascular
Insights, including their products, sales people, and R&D
facilities, had caused operational disruptions and reduced sales
and were months behind schedule; (2) that sales of acquired company
products had slowed substantially due to pre-acquisition pipeline
fill, in particular for Vascular Insights products which, as late
as July 2019, had zero orders during fiscal 2019; and (3) that in
light of the foregoing, the Company's reported financial guidance
for fiscal 2019 and 2020 was made without a reasonable basis.
To be a member of these class actions, 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 these class actions, 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, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
Contact:
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Tel: 215-638-4847, 888-638-4847
Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com
Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
[GN]
MIRENESSE COSMETICS: Tillery Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIELLE TILLERY, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. MIRENESSE COSMETICS, Case No. 3:19-cv-08106 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 12,
2019), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Mirenesse bombarded consumers' phones
with marketing text messages using an automatic telephone dialing
system.
Ms. Tillery alleges that on November 2, 2019, she messaged "STOP:"
to Mirenesse in order to get it to stop sending her automated text
messages. However, notwithstanding her request, Mirenesse continued
to send automated text messages to her cellular telephone, she
contends.
Mirenesse Cosmetics is a privately owned Australian company with
its principal place of business in Melbourne, Australia, in the
Australian state of Victoria. Mirenesse sells its products in
Australia, Europe, Asia and throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Yana A. Hart, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 233-7770
Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
yana@kazlg.com
MOBILE MINI DEALER: Daisy Inc. Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Adverts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daisy, Inc., a Florida corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. MOBILE
MINI DEALER, INC., MOBILE MINI I, INC., Arizona corporations, and
MOBILE MINI, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00017
(M.D. Fla., Jan. 10, 2020), challenges the Defendants' practice of
sending unsolicited facsimiles, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991.
The Defendants have sent, and continue to send, unsolicited
advertisements via facsimile transmission in violation of the TCPA,
including to those advertisements sent to the Plaintiff. The fax
promotes the availability and quality of the Defendants' property,
goods, or services.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of those who received
marketing messages from the Defendants, including faxes sent to the
Plaintiff and other advertisements sent without proper opt-out
language or without prior express invitation or permission, whether
sent to the Plaintiff or not.
Plaintiff, DAISY, INC., is a Florida corporation with its principal
place of business within this judicial district.
MOBILE MINI DEALER, INC. and MOBILE MINI I, INC. are Arizona
corporations, and MOBILE MINI, INC., is a Delaware
corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Phone: 847-368-1500
Fax: 847-368-1501
Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
MORGAN STANLEY: Briefing Scheds in Harvey & Chen Labor Suits Moved
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BRANDON HARVEY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MORGAN STANLEY SMITH
BARNEY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02835-WHO (N.D. Cal.),
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Joint Stipulation Regarding the
Briefing Schedule for Plaintiff Harvey's Motion for Attorney Fees
and Costs and Class Representative Enhancement Award and the Chen
Plaintiffs' Motion to Intervene and Motion for Award of Attorneys'
Fees, Costs, and Service Awards.
Plaintiff Harvey and Defendant Morgan ("together, the Harvey
Parties") and the Plaintiffs in the case of Chen et al. v. Morgan
Stanley Smith Barney LLC currently pending in the Orange County
Superior Court of California (the "Chen Plaintiffs") submitted the
instant Joint Stipulation.
On Nov. 14, 2019, Harvey filed his Motion for Attorney Fees and
Costs and Class Representative Enhancement Award with a hearing
date of Feb. 5, 2020 per the Court's Sept. 6, 2019 order granting
preliminary approval of the class action settlement. Also on Nov.
14, 2019, the Chen plaintiffs filed two motions also with hearing
dates on Feb. 5, 2010 -- a Motion to Intervene and a Motion for
Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards.
The Harvey Parties and the Chen Plaintiffs have since agreed to a
mutually agreeable alternate briefing schedule for the briefs
related to the motions for attorney fees and motion to intervene.
Specifically, they requested that the Court sets the following
briefing schedule for the motions for attorneys' fees and motion to
intervene: (1) any opposition to the motions for attorneys' fees
and motion to intervene will be filed on Dec. 18, 2019; and (2) any
reply brief(s) will be filed on Jan. 16, 2020.
All parties agreed that the alternate briefing schedule will
provide sufficient time for the parties to draft their briefs and
prepare for the anticipated Feb. 5, 2020 hearing date.
Judge Orrick granted the Joint Stipulation that (i) any opposition
to the motions for attorneys' fees and motion to intervene will be
filed on Dec. 18, 2019; and (ii) any reply brief(s) will be filed
on Jan. 16, 2020.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/iwgNuL from Leagle.com.
Brandon Harvey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Edward Joseph Wynne --
ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com -- Wynne Law Firm, David Samuel Markun --
dmarkun@mczlaw.com -- Markun Zusman Freniere & Compton LLP, George
Ryan Nemiroff -- gnemiroff@wynnelawfirm.com -- Wynne Law Firm,
James F. Clapp -- jclapp@sdlaw.com -- Clapp & Lauinger LLP, Jeffrey
Karl Compton -- jcompton@mzclaw.com -- Markun Zusman Freniere &
Compton LLP & Marita Murphy Lauinger -- mlauinger@clapplegal.com --
Clapp & Lauinger LLP.
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, Defendant, represented by Lynne C.
Hermle -- lchermle@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP, Andrew Ralston Livingston -- alivingston@orrick.com -- Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Benjamin R. Buchwalter --
bbuchwalter@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe LLP, Jinnifer
Darlene Pitcher -- jpitcher@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington
Sutcliffe & Katie Elizabeth Briscoe -- kbriscoe@orrick.com --
Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP.
MYLAN NV: Bronstein Gewirtz Notifes Investors of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Mylan N.V. (NASDAQ: MYL) and
certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased
Mylan securities between May 9, 2018 and May 6, 2019, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to
join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/myl.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Mylan's Morgantown facility was in significant violation
of the FDA's Current Good Manufacturing Practice regulations; (2)
Mylan would need to engage in a massive restructuring and
remediation program; (3) Mylan's North American Segment would be
substantially impacted by said program, which would in turn
materially impact Mylan's financial health; (4) Mylan lacked
effective internal control over financial reporting; and (5) as a
result, Mylan's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/myl or you may contact Peretz
Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in Mylan you have until February 14, 2020 to request that
the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on
behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.
Contact:
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Tel: 212-697-6484
Email: info@bgandg.com
[GN]
MYLAN NV: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Mylan N.V.
(NASDAQ: MYL) for violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between May 9,
2018 and May 6, 2019, inclusive (the Class Period), are encouraged
to contact the firm before February 14, 2020.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Mylan was in violation of FDA's Current
Good Manufacturing Practice regulations at its Morgantown facility.
Fixing the problems would require the Company to undertake an
extensive remediation program. This massive effort would, in turn,
impact the Company's North American segment, hurting its financial
performance. The Company failed to maintain effective controls on
financial reporting. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about Mylan,
investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
Contact:
Brian Schall, Esq.,
The Schall Law Firm
Website: www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
Cell: 424-303-1964
Email: info@schallfirm.com, brian@schallfirm.com
[GN]
NORDSON CORP: Continues to Defend Ortiz Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nordson Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended October 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior
Court, California, initiated by a former employee of the company.
On February 22, 2019, a former employee, Mr. Ortiz, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior
Court, California, against Nordson Asymtek, Inc. and Nordson
Corporation, alleging various violations of the California Labor
Code.
Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount for
unpaid wages, actual, consequential and incidental losses,
penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Nordson said, "Management believes, based on currently available
information, that the ultimate outcome of the proceeding described
above will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition or results of operations."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Nordson Corporation engineers, manufactures, and markets products
and systems to dispense, apply, and control adhesives, coatings,
polymers, sealants, biomaterials, and other fluids worldwide.
Nordson Corporation was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in
Westlake, Ohio.
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Continues to Defend Stirling Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12,
2019, for the quarterly period ended November 2, 2019, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Robert
Stirling et al. v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. et al.,
Civ. No. 1:19-cv-08647-JPO.
On September 17, 2019, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
captioned Robert Stirling et al. v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet
Holdings, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 1:19-cv-08647-JPO was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, Mark Butler (then serving as the Company's
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors),
Jay Stasz (the Company's Chief Financial Officer), and John Swygert
(then serving as the Company's Chief Operational Officer).
The complaint alleges that, in public statements between June 6,
2019, and August 28, 2019, the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
information about the Company's earnings, projections, supply
chain, and inventory.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
Ollie's said, "We believe the case to be without merit."
Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. is a highly differentiated
and fast-growing, extreme value retailer of brand name merchandise
at drastically reduced prices. Known for its assortment of products
offered as "Good Stuff Cheap," the company offers customers a broad
selection of brand name products, including housewares, food, books
and stationery, bed and bath, flooring, toys and hardware. The
company is based in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
ONCOSEC MEDICAL: Alpha Holdings Class Action Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Medical Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit initiated by Alpha Holdings, Inc.
On October 29, 2019, the company's stockholder, Alpha Holdings,
Inc., filed two actions in the district court, Clark County,
Nevada, that concern the proposed equity investment in the Company
(the "Proposed Transaction") by (i) Grand Decade Developments
Limited, a British Virgin Islands limited company and a wholly
owned subsidiary of China Grand Pharmaceutical and Healthcare
Holdings Limited and (ii) Sirtex Medical US Holdings, Inc., an
affiliate of CGP.
The first action, asserted against the Company only, seeks to
compel the Company to make its books and records available for
inspection, so that Alpha can solicit proxies from other
stockholders in connection with the vote to approve the Proposed
Transaction.
The second section, a putative class action asserted against the
Company, certain directors on the OncoSec Board, Sirtex and Grand
Decade, seeks, among other things, to enjoin the Proposed
Transaction, based on a claim that the Director Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by (i) failing to make complete and accurate
disclosures concerning the Proposed Transaction, (ii) adopting
improper defensive measures to preclude the Company from pursuing
alternatives to the Proposed Transaction, and (iii) running an
inadequate "sales process" that failed to obtain the highest value
reasonably available.
This second action also asserts a claim that Sirtex and CGP aided
and abetted the Director Defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties.
The Company finds no merits in Alpha's claims and expects to
continue to defend the suits vigorously.
Oncosec Medical Incorporated a late-stage biotechnology company
focused on designing, developing and commercializing innovative
therapies and proprietary medical approaches to stimulate and to
guide an anti-tumor immune response for the treatment of cancer.
The company is based in Pennington, New Jersey.
ORACLE CORP: Awaits Court's Decision on Bid to Dismiss Cal. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oracle Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2019, that the defendants are
awaiting the court's decision on a motion to dismiss the class
action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
On August 10, 2018, a putative class action, brought by an alleged
stockholder of Oracle, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the company, its Chief
Technology Officer, its then‑two Chief Executive Officers, two
other Oracle executives, and one former Oracle executive.
Mark V. Hurd, one of the company's Chief Executive Officers, passed
away on October 18, 2019. On March 8, 2019, plaintiff filed an
amended complaint. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants made or
are responsible for false and misleading statements regarding
Oracle's cloud business. Plaintiff further alleges that the former
Oracle executive engaged in insider trading.
Plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may proceed as a class
action, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
unspecified declaratory/injunctive relief.
On April 19, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended
complaint. On October 17, 2019, the court heard oral argument on
the motion but has not yet issued a decision.
Oracle said, "We believe that we have meritorious defenses against
this action, and we will continue to vigorously defend it."
Oracle Corporation develops, manufactures, markets, sells, hosts,
and supports application, platform, and infrastructure solutions
for information technology (IT) environments worldwide. The company
provides services in three layers of the cloud: Software as a
Service, Platform as a Service, and Infrastructure as a Service.
The company was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Redwood
City, California.
PEPPER'S MIAMI: Rodriguez Claims Overtime for Hours Over 40
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harold Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Pepper's Miami Beach, LLC, Aspis Group LLC,
David Gonzalez and Gonzalo F. Leon, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 19-cv-25297, (S.D. Fla., December 26, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Defendants used to operate as Peppers Authentico Mexicano where
Rodriguez worked as a non-exempt, hourly-paid employee, bartending,
taking food orders and preparing drinks for customers from November
2016 through on or about February 2019. He claims to be denied
overtime for hours worked in excess of forty hours in certain weeks
throughout the duration of his employment. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Natalie Staroschak, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
Southfield, MI 48075
Tel: (313) 251-1399
Fax: (313) 739-1975
Email: nstaroschak@forthepeople.com
PETRO RIVER: Appeal in Donelson-Friend Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Petro River Oil Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2019, that the appeal by the
plaintiffs in the case entitled, Martha Donelson and John Friend,
et al. v. United States of America, Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Indian Affairs and Devon Energy Production, LP, et al.,
remains pending.
On August 11, 2014, Martha Donelson and John Friend amended their
complaint in an existing lawsuit by filing a class action complaint
styled: Martha Donelson and John Friend, et al. v. United States of
America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and
Devon Energy Production, LP, et al., Case No. 14-CV-316-JHP-TLW,
United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.
The plaintiffs added as defendants twenty-seven (27) specifically
named operators, including Spyglass, as well as all Osage County
lessees and operators who have obtained a concession agreement,
lease or drilling permit approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
in Osage County allegedly in violation of National Environmental
Policy Act.
Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the BIA improperly
approved oil and gas leases, concession agreements and drilling
permits prior to August 12, 2014, without satisfying the BIA's
obligations under federal regulations or NEPA, and seek a
determination that such oil and gas leases, concession agreements
and drilling permits are void ab initio.
Plaintiffs are seeking damages against the defendants for alleged
nuisance, trespass, negligence and unjust enrichment. The potential
consequences of such complaint could jeopardize the corresponding
leases.
On October 7, 2014, Spyglass, along with other defendants, filed a
Motion to Dismiss the August 11, 2014 Amended Complaint on various
procedural and legal grounds.
Following the significant briefing, the Court, on March 31, 2016,
granted the Motion to Dismiss as to all defendants and entered a
judgment in favor of the defendants against the plaintiffs. On
April 14, 2016, Spyglass with the other defendants, filed a Motion
seeking its attorneys' fees and costs. The motion remains pending.
On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed three motions: a Motion to
Amend or Alter the Judgment; a Motion to Amend the Complaint; and a
Motion to Vacate Order. On November 23, 2016, the Court denied all
three of Plaintiffs' motions.
On December 6, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. That appeal is pending as of the
filing date of these financial statements.
Petro River said, "There is no specific timeline by which the Court
of Appeals must render a ruling. Spyglass intends to continue to
vigorously defend its interest in this matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Petro River Oil Corp., an independent energy company, focuses on
the exploration and development of conventional oil and gas assets.
It primarily holds interests in the Mid-Continent Region in
Oklahoma, including Osage County and Kay County, Oklahoma. The
company is based in New York, New York.
PINK PONY: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Ligon Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leah Ligon, an individual; Carla Campbell, an individual; and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. PINK PONY, LLC, a
Florida Limited Liability Company; DEWAYNE ALLEN LEVESQUE, and
individual; SAM RODRIGUEZ, an individual; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and
DOES 4-100, inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-00067 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 9,
2020), seeks to recover damages due to the Defendants' failure to
pay according to the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendants as dancers from
2017 through 2018, allege that they were denied minimum wage
payments and denied overtime as part of the Defendants' scheme to
classify them and other dancers/entertainers as "independent
contractors." The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants
illegally absconded with their tips.
The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs minimum wages and
overtime wages for all hours worked in violation of the FLSA,
according to the complaint. The Defendants also forced illegal
kickbacks in the form of house fees that the Plaintiffs were
required to pay, just to work. The Defendants' conduct violates the
FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for
their overtime work at a rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay, says the complaint.
The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility
located in Tampa, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq.
FLORIDA LEGAL, LLC
14 Northeast 1st Avenue, Suite 1001
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 722-6977
Fax: (786) 870-4030
Email: ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law
- and -
Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
KRISTENSEN, LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Phone: (310) 507-7924
Fax: (310) 507-7906
Email: jesenia@kristensenlaw.com
- and -
Craft Hughes, Esq.
HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77066
Phone: (713) 554-2377
Fax: (888) 995-3335
Email: craft@hughesellzey.com
PLITEK LLC: Soyka Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Soyka, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PLITEK, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company,
Case No. 2020CH00354 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Jan. 10, 2020), is
brought against the Defendant, for damages and other legal and
equitable remedies resulting from its illegal actions in
collecting, storing and using the Plaintiff's biometric identifiers
and biometric information without obtaining informed written
consent or providing the requisite data retention and destruction
policies, in direct violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.
In direct violation of each of the provisions of the BIPA, the
Defendant collected, stored and used--without first providing
notice, obtaining informed written consent or publishing data
retention policies--the fingerprints and associated personally
identifying information of hundreds of its employees (and former
employees), who are being required to "clock in" with their
fingerprints. If the Defendant's databases of digitized
fingerprints were to fall into the wrong hands, by data breach or
otherwise, the employees to whom these sensitive and immutable
biometric identifiers belong could have their identities stolen,
among other serious issues, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant in August 2017.
The Defendant is an Illinois limited liability company with its
headquarters in Des Plaines, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312.283.3814
Fax: 773.496.8617
Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com
PORT AUTHORITY OF NY/NJ: Union Workers Sue Over CBA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Heydweiler, Kerry Breen, Marco Fornaro Jr. and Joseph
Calandra, and other similarly situated current and former laborers,
Plaintiff, v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, Defendant,
Case No. 721492/2019, (N.Y. Sup., December 26, 2019), seeks
declaratory relief against Defendants for their unlawful actions,
compensation for wages that were illegally deducted, liquidated
damages, compensatory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to New York Labor
Law.
Plaintiffs were union-represented port employees. Defendant
allegedly failed to negotiate Plaintiffs' union contracts,
including annual general wage increases during their employment and
failed to pay retroactive wages in accordance with their
agreements. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JASON TENENBAUM P.C.
595 Stewart Avenue, Suite 400
Garden City, NY 11750
Tel: (516) 750-0595
Website: http://jtnylaw.com/
PPG INDUSTRIES: Court Enters Final Judgment in Mild Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge R. Gary Klausner of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California has issued final judgment in the case TREVOR
MILD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., MICHAEL H. McGARRY, VINCENT J.
MORALES, and MARK C. KELLY, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-04231-RGK-JEM (C.D. Cal.).
The Parties have entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated June 1, 2019 that provides for a complete
dismissal with prejudice of the Released Claims on the terms and
conditions set forth in the Stipulation, subject to the approval of
the Court. By Order dated July 25, 2019, the Court issued its
Preliminary Approval Order. Due and adequate notice has been given
to the Settlement Class.
The Court conducted the Settlement Hearing on Oct. 21, 2019.
Having reviewed and considered the Stipulation, all papers filed
and proceedings held herein in connection with the Settlement, all
oral and written comments received regarding the Settlement, and
the record in the Action, and good cause appearing therefor, Judge
Klausner entered final judgment in the case.
The Judge affirmed the Court's determinations in the Preliminary
Approval Order certifying, for the purposes of the Settlement only,
the Action as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the Settlement
Class consisting of all persons and entities who or which purchased
or otherwise acquired PPG common stock between Jan. 19, 2017
through May 10, 2018, inclusive and who were damaged thereby.
The Action and all of the claims asserted against the Defendants in
the Action by the Lead Plaintiff and the other Settlement Class
Members are dismissed with prejudice. The Parties will bear their
own costs and expenses, except as otherwise expressly provided in
the Stipulation.
Separate orders will be entered regarding approval of a plan of
allocation and the motion of the Lead Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses.
Judge Klausner finds that the Defendants have satisfied their
financial obligations under the Stipulation by causing their
insurers to pay $25 million in cash to the Settlement Fund.
Without further order of the Court, the Lead Plaintiff and the
Defendants may agree to reasonable extensions of time to carry out
any provisions of the Settlement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2019 Judgment is available
at https://is.gd/5n2zDI from Leagle.com.
Trevor Mild, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- Rosen Law Firm PA.
Joe Cammarata, Movant, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay,
Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Ex Kano S. Sams, II, Glancy Prongay
and Murray LLP, Jason L. Krajcer, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP,
Leanne Heine Solish, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Lionel Zevi
Glancy -- LGLANCY@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP &
Peter A. Binkow -- PBINKOW@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay and
Murray LLP.
PPG Industries, Inc., Michael H. McGarry & Vincent J. Morales,
Defendants, represented by Andrew J. Levander, Dechert LLP, pro hac
vice, Catherine V. Wigglesworth, Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, David
H. Stern, Dechert LLP, Michael L. Kichline, Dechert LLP, pro hac
vice, Roger A. Dixon, Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Stuart T.
Steinberg -- stuart.steinberg@dechert.com --Dechert LLP, pro hac
vice & Tiffany E. Engsell -- tiffany.engsell@dechert.com -- Dechert
LLP, pro hac vice.
Mark C. Kelly, Defendant, represented by Anne Johnson Palmer, Ropes
and Gray LLP, David I. Hurwitz, Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim
Drooks Lincenberg and Rhow, David H. Stern, Dechert LLP, Gregory L.
Demers -- Gregory.Demers@ropesgray.com -- Ropes and Gray LLP, pro
hac vice & R. Daniel O'Connor -- Daniel.OConnor@ropesgray.com --
Ropes and Gray LLP, pro hac vice.
PREMIER FIRE: King Seeks $6,804 in Unpaid Wages and Other Relief
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph King, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. PREMIER FIRE ALARMS & INTEGRATION SYSTEM, INSTALLATION DIVISION,
INC., a Florida Corporation, and MATTHEW HAIMAN, individually, Case
No. 0:20-cv-60064-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 10, 2020), seeks to recover
compensation amounting to $6,804 in unpaid wages and other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants require the Plaintiff, a
non-exempt employee under the FLSA, to work in excess of 40 hours
per work week, but willfully refused to properly compensate him for
such work, in violation of the FLSA. Over the course of his
employment, the Plaintiff is owed approximately $6,720 in unpaid
compensation.
Additionally, when the Plaintiff would work actual overtime hours
in addition to these 42.5 hours, those hours would be paid months
later, but in straight time cash, for which the Plaintiff has
conservatively calculated to be an additional $84, says the
complaint. Thus, the Plaintiff is owed $6,804 in unpaid wages.
The Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempt employee by the
Defendants.
The Defendants were the employer or former employer of the
Plaintiff and is conducting business in this judicial
district.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad E. Levy, Esq.
David M. Cozad, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 588
Sunrise, FL 33323
Phone: (954) 763-5722
Facsimile: (954) 763-5723
Email: chad@levylevylaw.com
david@levylevylaw.com
PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Pill Balks at Lantheus Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID PILL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ANN MACDOUGALL, GERARD
BER, BRADLEY L. CAMPBELL, ERIC J. ENDE, KAREN JEAN FERRANTE, HEINZ
MAUSLI, and DAVID W. MIMS, Case No. 1:19-cv-02268-UNA (D. Del.,
Dec. 12, 2019), arises from a proposed transaction, pursuant to
which Lantheus Holdings, Inc. will acquire Progenics.
On October 1, 2019, Progenics' Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with
Lantheus, a Delaware corporation, and Plato Merger Sub, Inc., a
direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of Lantheus. In accordance with the
Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into Progenics,
leaving Progenics as the surviving company in the Merger as a
direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of Lantheus. Each share of
Progenics common stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to
the effective time (other than those owned by Lantheus, Progenics,
or any of their wholly-owned subsidiaries) will be automatically
cancelled and converted into the right to receive 0.2502 shares of
Lantheus common stock.
On November 12, 2019, the Defendants filed a Registration Statement
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The
Registration Statement omits certain material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders it false and
misleading, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, says the complaint. In soliciting
shareholder approval for the Proposed Transaction, the Defendants
caused the issuance of the Registration Statement, which purports
to contain an overview of the Proposed Transaction, but omits
certain critical information, rendering portions of the
Registration Statement materially incomplete and/or misleading, in
violation of the Exchange Act provisions.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement omits
material information concerning the opinion rendered by Jefferies
LLC, the financial advisor retained by the Company, dated as of
October 1, 2019, which found that the exchange ratio specified in
the Merger Agreement was fair, from a financial point of view, to
the holders of Progenics common stock.
Failure to provide the information satisfactorily not only
undermines the ability of Progenics' shareholders to make an
informed decision as to the Merger, but also calls into question
Jefferies' opinion as to the fairness of the Merger, the Plaintiff
contends. As a result, Progenics shareholders lack material
information necessary to allow them to make an informed decision
concerning whether or not to vote in favor of the Merger, the
Plaintiff adds.
The Plaintiff is and has been the owner of Progenics common stock.
The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from taking any steps
to consummate the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the
Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting
from Defendants' wrongdoing.
According to the Company's March 2019 Form 10-K, Progenics "is an
oncology company focused on the development and commercialization
of innovative targeted medicines and artificial intelligence to
find, fight and follow cancer." The Individual Defendants are
officers and directors of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
Brian D. Long, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Carl L. Stine, Esq.
Antoinette A. Adesanya, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 759-4600
Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT: Fails to Properly Pay Cleaners, Gray Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Gray, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC d/b/a CUSTOM CLEANING
AND MAINTENANCE, and MARLENE CORNACHIO, Case No. 1:20-cv-00054-PAG
(N.D. Ohio, Jan. 10, 2020), seeks all available relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act
and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act arising from the Defendants' failure to
properly pay the Plaintiff and other cleaners.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours
in a workweek when counting all work time under the continuous
workday rule. The Plaintiff and others were required to go into the
Defendants' office approximately an hour before their shifts to
receive job assignments. The Plaintiff says this time was not
paid.
The Plaintiff and the class were also required to travel back to
the Defendants' office to turn in their time sheets and return the
Defendant-provided vehicle, as applicable. This time was also
unpaid, says the complaint. The Defendants' failure to pay for the
pre-shift work before the day's first job, failure to pay drive
time, and failure to pay the post-shift work resulted in minimum
wage and/or overtime violations, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt,
hourly cleaner.
The Defendants are and have been individually and jointly in the
business of providing residential and commercial cleaning
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
34 N. High St., Ste. 502
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: 614-824-5770
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Phone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP announces that on December 20, 2019, it filed
a securities class action lawsuit, captioned Frampton Living Trust
v. Resideo Technologies, Inc., No. 19-cv-3133 (D. Minn.) (the
"Action"), on behalf of its client Frampton Living Trust against
Resideo Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: REZI), and certain officers and
directors (collectively, "Defendants"). The Action is brought on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased shares of
Resideo's common stock between October 10, 2018 and October 22,
2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), pursuant to Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder.
Resideo is a global provider of products, software, solutions, and
technologies that help homeowners stay connected and in control of
their comfort, security, and energy use. The Company also provides
home heating, ventilation and air conditioning controls, security
solutions, and is a distributor of security and low-voltage
electronics products. The Company was formed through a spin-off
from Honeywell International Inc. ("Honeywell").
The Action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions
concerning Resideo's business and financial condition, including
its forecasted financial results. Specifically, the Action alleges
that Defendants failed to disclose the following true facts, which
were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (i) the
negative effects of the spin-off were more substantial and
persistent than disclosed and had negatively affected the Company's
sales, supply chain, and gross margins; (ii) Resideo faced serious
competition for its products, including competition from Honeywell;
and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
guidance lacked a reasonable basis and the Company was not on track
to make its 2019 guidance as claimed.
The truth about the issues plaguing Resideo was revealed through a
series of disclosures, culminating with the material reduction of
the Company's long-reaffirmed 2019 guidance.
First, on March 7, 2019, Resideo issued its financial results for
the fourth quarter and full-year 2018. On this date, the Company
also announced that it was lowering its 2019 financial forecasts.
The Company further revealed that the profitability of certain
business segments had been impacted by costs related to the
spin-off. This disappointing news caused Resideo shares to decline
by over 23 percent on March 7, 2019.
Second, on August 7, 2019, after the close of trading, Resideo
issued its financial results for the second quarter of 2019,
disclosing that the Company's earnings had come in below estimates.
The following day, on the Company's pre-market earnings call with
analysts and investors, Defendants further revealed that Resideo
was experiencing margin pressures due to product mix headwinds,
including the sale of lower margin devices. On this news, the
Company's share price declined by 2.4 percent from its opening
price. As the market continued to digest the disappointing news,
Resideo common stock further declined by approximately 3.7 percent
on August 9, 2019, and declined by approximately 5.2 percent the
following trading day on August 12, 2019.
After the close of trading on October 22, 2019, Resideo released
preliminary financial results for the third quarter, and surprised
investors by announcing earnings that significantly missed
estimates. The Company also materially reduced its earnings
guidance for 2019. The drivers of these disappointing results were
the lower sales of thermostats and the performance of the RTS
business. That same day, the Company announced the abrupt
resignation of the Company's Chief Financial Officer. In response
to these disclosures, the price of Resideo stock declined by over
37 percent.
If you purchased Resideo common stock during the Class Period, and
were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be
able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion
papers must be filed with the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota no later than January 7, 2020. The Lead
Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of
the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff
to share in any Class recovery in the Action. If you are a Class
member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that
recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your
choice to represent you in the Action.
If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any
questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P.
McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via
email at fmcconville@labaton.com.
Frampton Living Trust is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which
represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States
and internationally with combined assets under management of more
than $2 trillion. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its
excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked
in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York,
NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C. More information about
Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com. [GN]
RIVERSIDE PARTNERS: Rosado Files False Product Labeling Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Candice Rosado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Riverside Partners L.L.C. and Nustef Baking
Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-07228 (E.D. N.Y., December 26,
2019), seeks to recover actual damages, statutory damages, attorney
fees and costs for breaches of express warranty, implied warranty
of merchantability and for violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty
Act.
Riverside Partners and Nustef Baking manufacture, distribute,
market, label and sell French vanilla traditional Italian waffle
cookies known as pizzelles. Plaintiff alleges that their
vanilla-flavored drinks contain vanilla flavor or vanilla extract
despite its labelling indicating "natural flavor." [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
1307 Chalkstone Avenue
Providence, RI 02908
Telephone: (401) 831-7730
Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
Email: pnwlaw@aol.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
891 Northern Blvd., Suite 201
Great Neck, NY 11021
Tel: (516) 303-0552
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
ROBERT SILLERMAN: Ct Enters Final Judgment Dismissing Guevoura Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York has entered Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal in the case, GUEVOURA FUND LTD., On Behalf of Itself and
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT F.X. SILLERMAN,
D. GEOFFREY ARMSTRONG, JOHN MILLER and MICHAEL JOHN MEYER,
Defendants, Case Nos. 1:15-cv-07192-CM, 1:18-cv-09784-CM (S.D.
N.Y.).
The matter came before the Court for hearing pursuant to the Order
Granting Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement and Providing
for Notice to the Class dated July 30, 2019.
Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Judge McMahon granted final class certification of the
Class in the Action consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired SFX common stock during the period
between Feb. 25, 2015 and Nov. 17, 2015, inclusive.
She confirmed the appointments of Lead Plaintiff Guevoura Fund Ltd.
as the Class Representative, and Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation as the Class Counsel.
Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Judge approved the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation and
finds that said Settlement, and all transactions preparatory and
incident thereto, is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and
adequate to, and is in the best interests of the Lead Plaintiff and
all the Class Members based on. The parties are directed to
perform the terms of the Stipulation, and the Clerk of the Court is
directed to enter and docket the Final Judgment in the Action.
The Judge approved the Plan of Allocation as set forth in the
Notice as fair and equitable. She directed the Claims
Administrator, under the supervision of the Lead Counsel, to
proceed with the processing of the Proofs of Claim and the
administration of the Settlement pursuant to the terms of the Plan
of Allocation and, upon completion of the claims processing
procedure, to present to the Court a proposed final distribution
order for the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to the
eligible Class Members, as provided in the Stipulation and Plan of
Allocation.
The Judge awarded and directed payment, as provided in the
Stipulation, to the Lead Counsel of their out-of-pocket litigation
expenses in the amount of $248,214.01, and attorneys' fees equal to
33 1/3% of the Director Defendants' Contribution, with interest to
accrue on such amounts at the same rate and for the same periods as
has accrued by the Settlement Fund from the date of the Final
Judgment to the date of actual payment of said attorneys' fees and
expenses from the Director Defendants' Contribution to the Lead
Counsel as provided in the Stipulation; and attorneys' fees equal
to 33 1/3% of the Sillerman Contribution, or portion(s) of the
Sillerman Contribution paid, if or when paid into the Settlement
Fund, with interest to accrue on such amount(s) at the same rate
and for the same periods as has accrued with respect to the
payment(s) of the Sillerman Contribution by the Settlement Fund
from the date of the payment(s) of the Sillerman Contribution to
the date of actual payment of said attorneys' fees to the Lead
Counsel.
The Lead Counsel will thereafter allocate the attorneys' fees among
any other attorney or firm who has appeared in the Action on behalf
of the Lead Plaintiff or the Class whose services or retention were
approved in advance by the Lead Plaintiff in a manner in which the
Lead Counsel in good faith believes reflects the contributions of
such counsel to the initiation, prosecution, and resolution of the
Action.
The Judge approved an award of $10,000 of reasonable costs and
expenses to the Lead Plaintiff directly relating to its
representation of the Class. The Lead Counsel may apply, from time
to time, for any fees and/or expenses incurred by them solely in
connection with the administration of the Settlement and
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to the Class Members.
All payments of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses to
the Lead Counsel in the Action will be made from the Settlement
Fund, and the Released Parties will have no liability or
responsibility for the payment of any of the Lead Counsel's
attorneys' fees or expenses except as expressly provided in the
Stipulation with respect to the cost of the Notice and
administration of the Settlement.
Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, any putative Class
Member had the right to request exclusion from the Class or object
to any aspect of the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, the Lead
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, and/or the Lead Plaintiff's request for
reimbursement of its time, by requesting such exclusion from the
Class or asserting such objection(s), in writing, in the manner
provided for by the Preliminary Approval Order.
Judge McMahon rules that the Action is dismissed with prejudice and
all the Released Claims against each and all the Released Parties
and without costs to any of the parties as against the others.
The Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal is a final judgment in
the Action as to all claims asserted. The Judge finds, for
purposes of Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
that there is no just reason for delay and expressly directs entry
of judgment as set forth.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2019 Final Judgment &
Order is available at https://is.gd/phKMpr from Leagle.com.
In Re Robert Francis Xavier Sillerman, Plaintiff, represented by
Sanford Philip Rosen -- srosen@rosenpc.com -- Sanford P. Rosen &
Associates, P.C.
Edward S. Gutman, Plaintiff, represented by Nancy Kaboolian , Abbey
Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP.
Guevoura Fund Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by Charles J. Piven,
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, Daniel Kuznicki --
kuznicki@browerpiven.com -- Kuznicki Law, PLLC, Yelena Trepetin,
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation & David A.P. Brower --
brower@browerpiven.com -- Brower Piven.
Wilfrid Global Opportunity Fund LP, Consolidated Plaintiff,
represented by Lynne M. Fischman Uniman, Andrews Kurth LLP.
Wilfrid Aubrey LLC, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Nancy
Kaboolian, Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP.
David Chan, Movant, represented by Phillip C. Kim, The Rosen Law
Firm.
Phillip Alfeld, Movant, represented by Adam M. Apton, Levi &
Korsinsky LLP.
Rong Liu, Movant, represented by Sharan Nirmul, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP.
Robert F.X. Sillerman, Defendant, pro se.
D. Geoffrey Armstrong, John Miller & Michael John Meyer,
Defendants, represented by Aaron Frank Miner --
aaron.miner@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP,
Catherine Barry Schumacher -- catherine.schumacher@arnoldporter.com
-- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Stephanna Francesca Szotkowski
-- stephanna.szotkowski@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye
Scholer LLP & Vincent Anthony Sama -- vincent.sama@arnoldporter.com
-- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.
SCI COLORADO: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Tarpinian Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael C. Tarpinian, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated persons v. SCI Colorado Funeral Services, LLC, Case No.
1:19-cv-03522 (D. Colo., Dec. 12, 2019), alleges that SCI violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act and the
Colorado Minimum Wage Act by failing to compensate employees at
"time and one-half" their regular rate of pay for all overtime
hours worked, the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked, and
all earned wages immediately upon termination.
The class and collective action seeks to recover damages and
backpay to compensate all current and former employees of SCI for
these wage violations.
The Plaintiff was employed with SCI as a family service counselor
from March 2015 through July 2017, in August 2018, and in June
2019. As a family service counselor, the Plaintiff made cold calls
to potential clients and called existing clients concerning funeral
and cremation services provided by SCI.
SCI provides funeral and cremation services in Colorado.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory E. Givens, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY E. GIVENS, P.C.
18 N. Sierra Madre Street, Suite E
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Telephone: 719-291-4353
E-mail: gegivens@hotmail.com
SEAGLE PIZZA: Thompson Seeks Minimum and OT Wages for Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated persons v. SEAGLE PIZZA, INC. d/b/a Domino's
Pizza and JOSEPH M. SEAGLE, individually, Case No.
3:20-cv-00016-JRW (W.D. Ky., Jan. 9, 2020), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act, as well
as under the Kentucky common law to recover unpaid minimum wages
and overtime hours owed to the Plaintiff and other delivery
drivers.
The Defendants employ delivery drivers, who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
the Defendants fail to reimburse at all for the use of their
vehicles, the Plaintiff contends.
The Defendants use a flawed method to determining reimbursement
rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any
reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the
drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wage to fall below the
minimum during some or all workweeks, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a deliver driver
from June 2019 to September 2019.
The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise
stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David O'Brien Suetholz, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
515 Park Avenue
Louisville, KY 40208
Phone: (502) 636-4333
Email: davids@bsjfirm.com
- and -
Joe P. Leniski, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa Parks Ave., Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Email: joeyl@bsjfirm.com
- and -
Jay Forester, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
Dallas, TX 75202
Phone: (214) 210-2100
Fax: (214) 346-5909
Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com
SHANAHAN ENGINEERING: Moore Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA, OMFWSA, OPPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Moore, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v.
SHANAHAN ENGINEERING, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-09992 (M.D. Tenn.,
Jan. 9, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime as required by
the FLSA and the Ohio Acts, says the complaint. Instead, the
Defendant paid the Plaintiff the same hourly rate for all hours
worked, including those in excess of 40 in a work week.
Plaintiff Moore was hired by the Defendant in January 2017.
Shanahan Engineering. Inc. is a worldwide company that provides
construction, commission and plant operation on large scale
projects.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trevor W. Howell, Esq.
HOWELL LAW, PLLC
P.O. Box 158511
Nashville, TN 37215
Phone: (615) 406-1416
Facsimile: (615) 373-8206
Email: Trevor@howelllawfirmllc.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
SHIFTPIXY INC: Continues to Defend Splond Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
ShiftPixy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended August 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by Corey Splond.
On April 8, 2019, claimant, Corey Splond, filed a class action
lawsuit, naming ShiftPixy, Inc. and its client as defendants,
claiming that he was scheduled to work for more than 8 hours during
24-hour periods without being paid overtime, to which he was
entitled.
In addition, claimant is seeking waiting time penalties for the
delay in payment. This lawsuit is in the initial stages; the
financial impact to the Company, if any, cannot be estimated.
No liability has been recorded for this matter at this time.
In the event of an unfavorable outcome the Company's client is
contractually obligated to indemnify the Company for misreported
hours and portions of the claim would be covered under the
Company’s employment practices liability insurance.
ShiftPixy, Inc. provides employment services for businesses; and
workers in shift or other part-time/temporary positions in the
United States. The company also operates as a payroll processor,
human resources consultant, and administrator of workers'
compensation coverages and claims. It primarily serves restaurant,
hospitality, and maintenance service industries. The company was
founded in 2015 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.
SIFCO INDUSTRIES: Sees $250,000 Loss in California Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
SIFCO Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 16, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that the Company has
recorded an estimated loss of $250,000 as of September 30, 2019 in
the class action suit arising from wage-and-hour claims under
California law, filed in August 2017.
The Company is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, which
was filed in August 2017, arising from employee wage-and-hour
claims under California law for alleged meal period, rest break,
hourly and overtime wage calculation, timely wage payment and
necessary expenditure indemnification violations; failure to
maintain required wage records and furnish accurate wage
statements; and unfair competition, which is similar to the one
previously settled in fiscal 2018.
SIFCO said, "As mentioned previously, the Company records reserves
for legal disputes and other matters in accordance with GAAP, the
ultimate outcomes of these types of matters are inherently
uncertain. Actual results may differ significantly from current
estimates. Given the current status of this matter, the Company
recorded an estimated loss of $250[,000] as of September 30,
2019."
SIFCO Industries, Inc. produces and sells forgings and machined
components primarily for the aerospace and energy markets in the
United States and Europe. It was founded in 1916 and is
headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.
STARBUCKS CORP: 9th Circuit Flips Dismissal of Naimi Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district
court order granting Starbucks' motion to dismiss the case OLIVER
NAIMI; THOMAS WESSEL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STARBUCKS
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-55975 (9th
Cir.).
Plaintiffs Naimi and Wessel brought a putative class action against
Starbucks and related entities, asserting claims under California
and New York consumer protection statutes and common law. The
district court granted Starbucks' motion to dismiss, holding that
the Plaintiffs failed to allege that Starbucks' "Doubleshot
Espresso" product label makes a false representation.
On appeal, the Appellate Court decides only whether the Plaintiffs'
claims are sufficiently plausible to survive a motion to dismiss
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Appellate
Court reversed, as the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that a
reasonable consumer would likely be deceived by the product's
label.
First, the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the product's
label conveys the implied representation that each can of the
beverage contains two shots of espresso brewed from the same beans
Starbucks uses in its cafés. Second, they've plausibly alleged
that the canned beverage contains less than two shots of Starbucks
brand espresso, thus rendering the label's implied representation
false. Plaintiffs conducted laboratory testing that compared the
caffeine content of 20 cans of the canned beverage to the caffeine
content of 20 samples of two shots of espresso purchased at
multiple Starbucks locations.
As an alternative ground for dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims
arising under New York General Business Law Sections 349-350, the
district court held that the Plaintiffs failed to plead a
cognizable theory of injury, as required under those statutes,
because they pleaded a flawed "deception-as-injury" theory. Under
New York law, a plaintiff's allegation that she would not have
purchased a product but for a deceptive act, standing alone, is not
a cognizable injury because it conflates the deceptive act with the
injury. Instead, a plaintiff must show that she did not receive
the full value of her purchase, by alleging (for instance) that she
paid a price premium due to the deception.
The complaint alleged that the Plaintiffs paid a price premium for
the canned beverage. That said, they did not allege how much they
paid for the beverage, how much they would have paid for it absent
the alleged deception, whether Starbucks (as opposed to a
third-party distributor) was responsible for any overpayment, or
any other details regarding the price premium. The bare recitation
of the word "premium" does not adequately allege a cognizable
injury. Because it is not clear that amendment would be futile,
the Plaintiffs should be afforded an opportunity on remand to amend
their complaint to allege the necessary factual details concerning
the alleged price premium they paid.
A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Memorandum
is available at https://is.gd/bN09QI from Leagle.com.
STRATEGIC HOSPITALITY: Smith Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Servers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hayden Smith and James D. Meadows, On Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated v. STRATEGIC HOSPITALITY, LLC, STRATEGIC
HOSPITALITY INVESTMENT FUND, LLC, STRATEGIC HOSPITALITY INVESTMENT
FUND MANAGER, LLC, and RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, LLC, d/b/a DOWNTOWN
SPORTING CLUB, Case No. 3:20-cv-00023 (M.D. Tenn., Jan. 9, 2020),
is brought against the Defendants to recover for servers and
bartenders unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs allege they were paid a tipped hourly rate lower
than the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. The Plaintiffs assert that
the Defendants improperly paid this lower tipped hourly rate to
servers and bartenders by impermissibly allowing non-tipped
employees to participate in a tip pooling arrangement and by
requiring these employees to spend more than 20% of each shift
performing non-tip-producing work tasks at the lower tipped hourly
rate.
The Plaintiffs and other servers and bartenders are required to
participate in a tip pool, in which their tips were shared with
other employees, who do not receive tips directly from, or interact
with, customers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as a server and as a
bartender at Downtown Sporting Club.
The Defendants own and operate Downtown Sporting Club, a cafe, bar,
and restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Philips Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Phone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
Email: jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
TAILORED BRANDS: Continues to Defend Suit vs Twin Hill
-------------------------------------------------------
Tailored Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2019, that Twin Hill, a
company's subsidiary, continues to defend a class action suit
initiated by two American Airlines employees.
On August 2, 2017, two American Airlines employees, Thor Zurbriggen
and Dena Catan, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the
company's Twin Hill subsidiary in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:17-cv-05648).
The complaint alleged claims for strict liability, negligence, and
medical monitoring based on allegedly defective uniforms Twin Hill
supplied to American Airlines for its employees.
On September 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding nine additional named plaintiffs, adding American Airlines,
Inc. as a defendant, and adding claims for civil battery and
intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiffs filed a Seconded Amended Complaint on October 4, 2018 on
behalf of 39 named plaintiffs, adding PSA Airlines, Inc. and Envoy
Air Inc. as defendants, adding new factual allegations and adding a
new claim of fraud against American.
The Second Amended Complaint included plaintiffs from the Onody
(Case No. 1:18-cv-02303) and Joy (Case No. 1:18-cv-05808) matters
we reported in prior filings.
As a result, on October 16, 2018, the judge dismissed the separate
Onody and Joy matters.
The company timely answered the Second Amended Complaint and the
matter will proceed in due course. The company believes that any
lawsuit filed on the basis of the safety of the Twin Hill uniforms
supplied to American Airlines is without merit, and we intend to
contest this action vigorously.
Twin Hill has substantial and convincing evidence of the uniforms'
safety and fitness for their intended purpose, and we believe that
there is no evidence linking any of the plaintiffs' alleged
injuries to our uniforms. The range of loss, if any, is not
reasonably estimable at this time.
Tailored Brands said. "We do not currently believe, however, that
it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position,
results of operations or cash flows."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Tailored Brands, Inc. operates as a specialty apparel retailer the
United States and Canada. It operates through two segments, Retail
and Corporate Apparel. The company was formerly known as The Men's
Wearhouse, Inc. and changed its name to Tailored Brands, Inc. in
February 2016. Tailored Brands, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
based in Houston, Texas.
UNITED NATURAL: Resolution Reached in North County Store Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
United Natural Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended November 2, 2019, that the Company
reached an agreed resolution in the class action suit entitled,
North Country Store v. United Natural Foods, Inc.
In November 2018, a putative nationwide class action was filed in
Rhode Island state court, which the Company removed to U.S.
District Court for the District of Rhode Island.
In North Country Store v. United Natural Foods, Inc., plaintiff
asserts that the Company made false representations about the
nature of fuel surcharges charged to customers and asserts claims
for alleged violations of Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act,
breach of contract, unjust enrichment and breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing arising out of the Company's fuel
surcharge practices.
On March 5, 2019, the Company answered the complaint denying the
allegations.
At a court-ordered mediation on October 15, 2019, the Company
reached an agreed resolution, which was immaterial in amount, to
avoid costs and uncertainty of litigation.
The potential settlement must go through the Court approval and
notice process, which will take several months.
United Natural Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
distributes natural, organic, and specialty foods and non-food
products in the United States and Canada. The company operates
through three divisions: Wholesale, Retail, and Manufacturing and
Branded Products. United Natural Foods, Inc. was founded in 1976
and is headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island.
USAA CASUALTY: Griffy Sues for Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------
Shinequa Griffy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant,
Case No. N19C-12-223 (Del. Sup., December 26, 2019), seeks
declaratory relief for breach of contract for unlawful methodology
in calculating statutory interests where such statutory interest is
owed. USAA allegedly only brings the accrual of such interest to an
end by paying both the principal amount owed in personal insurance
protection benefits and the required statutory interest leaving the
required statutory interest remaining unpaid, thus interest
continues to accrue.
USAA is an underwriter of automobile insurance including
first-party medical benefits for persons injured while driving or
occupying motor vehicles. Griffy is a policyholder under a Delaware
automobile insurance policy issued by USAA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John S. Spadaro, Esq.
JOHN SHEEHAN SPADARO, LLC
54 Liborio Lane
Smyrna, DE 19977
Tel: (302) 235-7745
VERU INC: Appeal Period in Schartz Class Suit Already Lapsed
------------------------------------------------------------
Veru Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs in
Glotzer v. The Female Health Company, et al., Case No.
2016-CH-13815, and Schartz v. Parrish, et al., Case No.
2016-CH-14488, did not file to appeal this decision during the time
period permitted for appeal.
The two purported derivative and class action lawsuits that were
filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, captioned Glotzer v.
The Female Health Company, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-13815, and
Schartz v. Parrish, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-14488, were resolved
in the Company's favor during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2019.
On July 10, 2019, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all
counts, dismissed the Amended Consolidated Complaint, and entered
final judgment in favor of all defendants.
The plaintiffs did not file to appeal this decision during the time
period permitted for appeal.
Veru Inc. operates as an oncology and urology biopharmaceutical
company. The company operates through two segments, Commercial, and
Research and Development. The company was formerly known as The
Female Health Company and changed its name to Veru Inc. in July
2017. Veru Inc. was founded in 1896 and is headquartered in Miami,
Florida.
WANDA SPORTS: Gross Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in publicly traded Wanda
Sports.
Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies during
the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
is not required to partake in any recovery.
Wanda Sports Group Company Limited (WSG)
Investors Affected : Wanda Sports' securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus
issued in connection with Wanda Sports' July 26, 2019 initial
public offering.
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Wanda Sports Group Company Limited. The filed complaint alleges
that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the lack of major sporting
events for its Digital, Production, Sports Solutions ("DPSS") and
Spectator Sports segments for its second quarter of 2019, ending
before the initial public offering, would negatively impact revenue
for the second quarter of 2019; (2) Wanda Sports had suffered a
year-over-year decrease in revenue in its second quarter ended June
30, 2019 and would for its fiscal year 2019, primarily related to
lower reimbursement revenues accounted for in its DPSS segment and
lack of Spectator Sport segment offsets; and (3) as a result,
Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/wanda-sports-group-company-limited-loss-submission-form/?id=4973&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock.
Contact:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770
E-mail: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
[GN]
WAWA INC: Fails to Guard Card Info, Sanders Data Breach Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Sanders and Patricia Sanders, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. WAWA, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-00029-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 9, 2020), accuses the Defendant of
failing to protect the personal and confidential information of
millions of its customers, including credit card and debit card
numbers, expiration dates, and cardholder names.
On December 19, 2019, Wawa revealed that it had discovered
malicious software on Wawa payment processing servers. According to
Wawa, "this malware affected customer payment card information used
at potentially all Wawa locations beginning at different points in
time after March 4, 2019 and until it was contained" on December
12, 2019.
The Plaintiffs contend that they and Class Members have been
injured and as a direct and proximate result of Wawa's wrongful
disclosure of their Payment Card Information.
Although Wawa believes "this malware no longer poses a risk to
customers using payment cards at Wawa," the Plaintiffs contend they
and Class Members are subject to identity fraud and identity theft
because of their compromised Payment Card Information wrongfully
disclosed in the Wawa Data Breach. Wawa had obligations, arising
from promises made to its customers like the Plaintiffs and other
Class Members, and based on industry standards, to keep the Payment
Card Information confidential and to protect it from unauthorized
disclosures, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs paid for one or more purchases at a Wawa store
and/or gas pump with a payment card.
Wawa owns and operates over 850 convenience stores and gas stations
in Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia,
Washington, D.C., and Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
James C. Shah, Esq.
Alec J. Berin, Esq.
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (610) 891-9880
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
Email: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com
jshah@sfmslaw.com
aberin@sfmslaw.com
–and–
Richard L. Coffman, Esq.
THE COFFMAN LAW FIRM
Edison Plaza
350 Pine Street, Suite 700
Beaumont, TX 77701
Phone: (409) 833-7700
Facsimile: (866) 835-8250
Email: rcoffman@coffmanlawfirm.com
- and -
Mitchell A. Toups, Esq.
MITCHELL A. TOUPS, LTD.
2615 Calder Ave., Suite 400
Beaumont, TX 77702
Phone: (409) 838-0101
Facsimile: (409) 838-6780
Email: matoups@wgttlaw.com
- and -
Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
FARNAN LLP
919 N. Market Street, 12th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 777-0300
Facsimile: (302) 777-0301
Email: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
WORD ENTERPRISES: Bid to Strike Improper Notices in McFarlin Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHAD McFARLIN, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. THE WORD ENTERPRISES, LLC, ET AL.,
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-12536 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Gershwin A.
Drain of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, denied the Plaintiff's Motion to
Strike Defendants' Improper Notices, filed on Nov. 20, 2019.
The instant case involves a chain of three Hungry Howie's
franchises located in Haslett, Perry, and St. Johns, Michigan.
McFarlin filed a complaint against the Defendants on July 6, 2016.
He alleged that the Defendants paid him below the Federal and
Michigan minimum wages during his time as a delivery driver for
Hungry Howie's pizza. He brought the action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Michigan Minimum Wage Law, and the Michigan
Workforce Opportunity Wage Act to recover unpaid wages owed to him
and similarly situated Hungry Howie's delivery drivers employed by
the Defendants. The Defendants filed an answer on Aug. 31, 2016,
denying the allegations and asserting affirmative defenses.
The Plaintiff then filed his First Amended Complaint on Sept. 19,
2017. He alleged that throughout his time as a delivery driver at
the Perry franchise, the Defendants paid him and similarly situated
drivers the exact Michigan minimum wage. He also purported that
the Defendants did not adequately reimburse him and other drivers
for vehicle expenses incurred while delivering pizzas. Therefore,
according to him, the Defendants actually paid him and the
similarly situated drivers below the federal and Michigan minimum
wages. The Defendants continued to deny these allegations.
The Parties participated in a full-day, private mediation on Aug.
15, 2019 before the Hon. James Rashid. They subsequently filed a
Joint Status Report on Sept. 19, 2019 explaining that they reached
a settlement in principle, subject to the Court's approval. The
Joint Status Report also included dates for the Parties to meet in
order to move forward with their settlement. The Court met with
the Parties on Sept. 23, 2019 to discuss the status of their
settlement agreement as well as the dates in the Joint Status
Report.
On Nov. 14, 2019, the Court conducted a telephonic conference with
the Parties to provide an updated status. It ordered the Parties
to meet with each other on Nov. 18, 2019 to resolve the
disagreement as to the specific language and mechanics of the
release, as well as any other remaining disputes in the language
for the Final Settlement Agreement.
The Defendants filed a Notice Regarding Status Conference on Nov.
18, 2019, providing an updated status on the cases' settlement
agreement. Specifically, the Defendants expressed their concern
that the Court was previously misled as to when the class list was
due. Further, the Notice denoted the outstanding dispute
concerning the language of the scope of the release. They also
indicated, though, that they were hopeful that this issue was
behind the Parties and that they could still meet their deadlines
for both the Final Settlement Agreement and the Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of FLSA Collective and Class Action
Settlement.
They also filed a Supplement to Notice Regarding Status Conference
later that day. In the Notice, they objected to the Plaintiff's
request to have a court reporter present during the conference on
the final settlement language. The Court advised the Parties soon
after that they were to meet and confer in the presence of the
court reporter.
The Plaintiff now seeks to strike the Defendants' Notice Regarding
Status Conference and Supplement to Notice Regarding Status
Conference from the record. He argues that Defense Counsel Patrick
Lannen made "several unsupported accusations" and "unprofessional
accusations" in these allegedly improper Notices. He further
claims that these Notices serve no other purpose other than
distracting the Court from the remaining issues in this matter and
clouding the record with improper filings. Therefore, the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an Order striking the Notices from the
record pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
Judge Drain denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants'
Improper Notices. He found that Rule 12(f) does not apply to a
notice because it is not a "pleading" under Rule 7(a); it therefore
provides no mechanism for the Court to strike Defendants' Notices
in the instant matter. Other courts within the Sixth Circuit have
recognized a district court's limited authority to strike filings
under Rule 12(f). The Plaintiff should have, instead, challenged
the Notices' admissibility by filing a notice of objection to it.
The Judge holds that an Order striking non-pleadings, such as the
Defendants' Notice, is not a proper usage of Rule 12(f).
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 22, 2019 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/aX1vvd from Leagle.com.
Chad McFarlin, Plaintiff, represented by Mark A. Potashnick --
markp@wp-attorneys.com -- Weinhaus & Potashnick & David M.
Blanchard -- blanchard@bwlawonline.com -- Blanchard & Walker,
PLLC.
Kevin Dittrich, The Word Enterprises, LLC, The Word Enterprises
Haslett, LLC, The Word Enterprises Lansing, LLC, The Word
Enterprises Owosso, LLC, The Word Enterprises Perry, LLC, The
Word Enterprises St. Johns, LLC & Dittrich Investments II, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Jeffrey S. Theuer --
jstheuer@loomislaw.com -- Loomis, Ewert.
Magna Services Group, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S.
Theuer, Loomis, Ewert & Patrick C. Lannen --
plannen@plunkettcooney.com -- Plunkett Cooney.
YUNJI INC: Gross Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in publicly traded Yunji
Inc.
Shareholders who purchased shares during the dates listed are
encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff
appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to
partake in any recovery.
Yunji Inc. (YJ)
Investors Affected : on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired Yunji American Depositary Shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's May 2019 initial public offering.
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Yunji Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company was shifting certain of its sales to
its marketplace platform; (2) this supply chain restructuring was
likely to disrupt Yunji's relationships with suppliers; (3) this
supply chain restructuring was likely to have an adverse impact on
the Company's financial results; and (4) 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.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/yunji-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=4973&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock.
Contact:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770
E-mail: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
[GN]
ZUORA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zuora, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 16, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend
a consolidated securities class action suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.
On June 14, 2019, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants.
The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between
April 12, 2018 and May 30, 2019.
The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects
in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act), and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, fees and costs. On September 9, 2019, the
district court appointed the lead plaintiff and lead counsel.
On November 8, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint asserting the same claims.
The Company believes the plaintiff's allegations are without merit
and intends to defend vigorously against the claims.
Zuora said, "Given the procedural posture and the nature of this
lawsuit, including that the proceedings are in the early stages,
the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter."
Zuora, Inc. is a leading cloud-based subscription management
platform. The company provides software that enables companies
across multiple industries and geographies to launch, manage or
transform to a subscription business model. Architected
specifically for dynamic, recurring subscription business models,
the company's cloud-based software functions as an intelligent
subscription management hub that automates and orchestrates the
entire subscription order-to-revenue process, including billing and
revenue recognition. The company is based in San Mateo,
California.
*********
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 2020. 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 ***