/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200213.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, February 13, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 32 Headlines 7500 BLIND PASS: Hill Seeks Unpaid Wages for Entertainers/Dancers A & P RESTAURANT: Emeterio Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA and NYLL A PLUS COMMERCIAL: Fails to Pay OT Wage Under FLSA, Matthews Says ADAM B. SCHIFF: AAPS Sues for Violations of Freedom of Expression ALSCO INC: Sued by Salas in California Over Employment Disputes ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Mann Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California AMESBURY CHEVROLET: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ingram Alleges ANTHEM BLUE: Kelekian Balks at Lesser Pay Rate for Podiatrists AURORA CANNABIS: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action AUSTRALIA: Morrison Faces Class Suit Over Climate Change Inaction BANK OF NEW YORK: Mogollon Suit Moved From D.N.J. to N.D. Texas BLUCORA INC: Pomerantz Law Probing Claims on Behalf of Investors BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Scott Securities Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. BUNNY FOO FOO: Faces Arriola Suit over TCPA Violations BURGER GUYS: Thomas and Siewnarine Sue over Unpaid Overtime Wages CANADA: Class Action Seeks to Have More Federal Workers Included CHERRY HILL: Ayers Seeks Overtime Wages for Misclassified Workers COINBASE INC: Offers Nearly $1MM Settlement to Cryptsy Victims CONNER LOGISTICS: Bid for Figueroa Deal Approval Filing Due Feb. 24 CREDIT LAW: Williston's Bid to Quash Subpoena in Ensminger Denied CV SCIENCES: Fistel Says Shareholder Suit Survives Dismissal Bid DA ON LLC: Lee Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA DARLING INGREDIENTS: Denies Odor Allegations in Class Action DUTTON RANCH: Hernandez Seeks to Certify H-2A Workers Class DYNAMIC F&B CONCEPTS: Bennet Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts ENERGY TRANSFER: Faces Shareholder Class Action EQUIFAX INC: Georgia Court OKs $380.5-Million Settlement ESCOBAR CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Perez Says EXELON CORP: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Feb. 14 Deadline EXELON CORP: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Feb. 14 Deadline EXPERIENCE THE RIDE: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FARMER'S FRESH: Cruz Seeks Compensation for Missed Breaks FARMERS GROUP: Grigson's Bid for Class Cert. Tossed Due to Accord FIRST SOLAR: Class Action Plaintiffs Secure $350MM Settlement FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Underpays Employees, Brown Claims FORD MOTOR: Reaches Focus, Fiesta Bad Transmission Suit Settlement GERON CORP: Rosen Law Announces Filing of Class Action GERON CORP: Schall Law Alerts Investors to Class Action GILEAD SCIENCES: Faces KPH Antitrust Suit Over cART Regimen Drugs GOOGLE INC: 9 States Oppose $13-Mil. Street View Settlement GREEN DOT: Brodsky & Smith Reminds of Feb. 18 Deadline H AND K: Griffiths Sues for Denial of Refund for Defective Product HI-TECH PAINTLESS: Dobrov Hits Misclassification, Seeks OT Pay HOUSTON ASTROS: Dodger Fan, Friends Want to File Class Action IFINEX INC: Race to Lead 3 Suits Over 2017 BTC Bull Run Is On INNOPHOS HOLDINGS: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action INTERNATIONAL CONCRETE: Sanchez Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages JAKARTA: Hundreds of Flood Survivors File Complaints JBS USA: Thornton Class Suit Removed to District of New Mexico JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Bailey Sues over FDCPA Violations JOHNSON & JOHNSON: $6.3M Deal Over Infants' Tylenol Packaging JOHNSON & JOHNSON: April 13 Tylenol Claims Filing Deadline Set JOLLY FARMS: Faces Trujillo TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Texts LANDS' END: Faces Second Class Action Over Delta Air Uniforms LB METALS: Brown Suit Over BIPA Violation Moved to N.D. Illinois LEHIGH UNIVERSITY: Class Action Seeks $54M in Punitive Damages LEXINGTON HEALTH: Villeneuve Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometrics MATCH GROUP: Faces Glynn TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Text Ads MATTEL INC: Bronstein Reminds Investors of Feb. 24 Deadline MATTEL INC: RM Law Woos Investors to Class Action Lawsuit MERCK & CO: Faces Middleton Suit Over Sale of Defective Zostavax MITSUBISHI HEAVY: Koreans Sue 6 Japanese Firms Over Forced Labor MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Howard G. Smith Reminds of March 3 Deadline MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Zhang Investor Announces Class Action Lawsuit MONSANTO COMPANY: Zellar Sues Over Sale of Herbicide Roundup(TM) MXD GROUP: Scheduling Conference in Kimbo Continued to April 27 NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Maurice Blackburn to Launch Class Action NCAA: Luke Sues Over Disregard for Health & Safety of Athletes NEW HAMPSHIRE: Faces Class Action Over Sexual Abuses NORTHEAST COMMUNITY: Reyes Suit Seeks Fines for Labor Code Breach NORTHWEST COLLECTORS: Schmieder Suit and Class Claims Dismissed NOVARTIS AG: Average Wholesale Price-Related Suit in NJ Ongoing NUWAVE LLC: Faces Cincinnati Suit Over Insurance Coverage Dispute OLD NAVY: Faces Barba Suit Over Fraudulent Advertising Scheme PATTERN ENERGY: Andrews & Springer Notes of Class Action PERDUE FARMS: Fails to Provide Meal & Rest Periods, Williams Says PETMED EXPRESS: Awaits Court's Execution of Joint Consent Decree PHONG TRAN: Improperly Pays Overtime Wages, Caraveo Suit Alleges QUDIAN INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of Class Action RANDSTAD TECHNOLOGIES: Earnest Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages RCO RESTORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baez Claims RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Toogood Calls Debt Collection "Abusive" RESURGENT CAPITAL: Cobb Sues in N.D. Georgia Over FDCPA Violation RING LLC: Faces Hagan Suit Over Faulty Camera Devices & Systems RING LLC: Orange Sues Over Hacking of Defective Wi-Fi Cameras RING: Camera Class Action Seeks $5 Million in Damages RITE AID: Nucci Moves to Certify Class of Non-Exempt Cal. Workers RMLS-HOP OHIO: Slaughter Moves to Certify Class of Tipped Servers RSCR CALIFORNIA: Martinez Sues over Wrongful Termination SAMB INC: Rahman Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA: ORBAI Assists in $400M Class Suit vs. DA SANTEE COOPER: V.C. Summer Plant Lawsuit Kicked Back to State Court SASOL LIMITED: Moshell Sues Over Decline in Value of Securities SAVOYA LLC: $750K Alabsi Suit Settlement Gets Initial Court Nod SCHARFMAN ORGANIZATION: 2 Rent-Overcharge Suits Certified SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS: Boian Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. SIZZLING WOK: Fails to Pay Overtime to Sushi Chefs, Nakoulas Says SONIM TECHNOLOGIES: Sterrett Named Lead Plaintiff in Malhotra Suit SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Scott Suit Over Shortened Meal Periods SPECIALTY PARKING: McDonald Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under NYLL TEAM DRIVE-AWAY: Fails to Offer Meal & Rest Periods, Haynie Says TEVA PARENTERAL: Orosco Seeks Fines for Not Paying All Wages Owed TOP CONCOURSE: Pena Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA/NYLL TOYOTA MOTOR SALES: Fernandez Sues Over Vehicle's Fuel Tank Defect TRIUS TRUCKING: Scheduling Conf. in Mondrian Continued to March 31 TYSON FOODS: Lucero Class Suit Removed to District of New Mexico UNITED SALES: Mendoza Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Truck Drivers UNITED STATES: Brown Sues TSA Over Cash Confiscation at Airport UPS SUPPLY CHAIN: Ayala Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. VERIZON NY: Beaton Sues over Unpaid Wages, Racial Discrimination VERTILUX LIMITED: Suros Seeks $15K in Damages for Unpaid OT Wages WAWA INC: Faces Muller Suit in Eastern District of Pennsylvania [*] Hagens Berman Joins Sugarcane Burning "Black Snow" Lawsuit [*] Top Wage-and-Hour Class Action Settlement Values Rise in 2019 ********* 7500 BLIND PASS: Hill Seeks Unpaid Wages for Entertainers/Dancers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Krystal Hill, on behalf of herself individually and all others similarly situated v. 7500 BLIND PASS CORPORATION d/b/a MERMAIDS GNETLEMEN'S CLUB, a Florida Profit Corporation and RICHARD JACOBSON, individually, Case No. 8:20-cv-00276 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 5, 2020), seeks to recover for entertainers/dancers money damages for unpaid wages, retaliation and additional damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants miscategorized the Plaintiff and other entertainers/dancers, who work at their Mermaids Gentlemen's Club as independent contractors and required them to pay to come to work, according to the complaint. The Defendants' class-wide misclassification and unlawful pay practices result in the Plaintiff and other entertainers/dancers making less than minimum wage, in violation of federal and Florida state law. The Plaintiff alleges that she worked approximately 8 hours per shift and 5 days per week but the Defendants have never paid her or any other entertainers/dancers any amount as an hourly wage. Instead, the entertainers' source of work-related income is gratuities they receive from customers. The Defendants knew, or showed reckless disregard for the fact, that it misclassified these entertainers/dancers as independent contractors, and accordingly failed to pay these entertainers/dancers the minimum wage and failed to pay overtime at the required rate under the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as an entertainer at the Defendants' club from November 2018 through September 2019. The Defendants own and operate a strip club called Mermaids Gentlemen's Club in Hillsborough County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. Louis Montone, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1950 Lee Rd., Suite 213 Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com lmontone@theleachfirm.com - and - Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone: 301-587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 839-9142 Email: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com A & P RESTAURANT: Emeterio Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA and NYLL ----------------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Emeterio, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. A & P RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a REMEDY DINER, MODERN HOSPITALITY GROUP CORP. d/b/a JAX INN DINER, ANASTASIOS GIANNOPOULOS, and PETER GIANNOPOULOS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00971 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 5, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to recover from the Defendants: unpaid overtime, unpaid wages due to time-shaving, unpaid spread of hours premium, improper meal credit deductions, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff asserts that he regularly worked over 40 hours per week, however, he was not compensated his overtime premium for hours worked over 40, as the Defendants paid him at a straight time rate for the first 45 hours on his check, and then paid the remaining overtime hours on a straight time basis in cash. The Defendants had a policy of automatically deducting 30 minutes each workday for a meal break, according to the complaint. However, the Plaintiff did not have an opportunity to take a meal break and was required to work through his meal break. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying for all hours worked, and the proper overtime rate thereof for all hours worked by the Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members, in violation of the FLSA and NYLL. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a line cook. The Defendants collectively own and operate two restaurants with locations in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 A PLUS COMMERCIAL: Fails to Pay OT Wage Under FLSA, Matthews Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTOPHER D. MATTHEWS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. A PLUS COMMERCIAL TIRE SERVICE LLC and NOEL BURKE, Case No. 1:19-cv-05835-MHC (N.D. Ga., Dec. 30, 2019), seeks to remedy the Defendants' violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a service tire driver for A Plus. He contends that was regularly forced to work more than 40 hours without being paid overtime compensation. A Plus specializes in the repair and provision of tires manufactured outside of the State of Georgia for the benefit of Defendant's clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler B. Kaspers, Esq. THE KASPERS FIRM, LLC 152 New Street, Suite 109B Macon, GA 31201 Telephone: 404 944-3128 E-mail: tyler@kaspersfirm.com ADAM B. SCHIFF: AAPS Sues for Violations of Freedom of Expression ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and Katarina Verrelli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Adam B. Schiff, in his individual capacity and his official capacity as a Member of Congress for the 28th Congressional District of California, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00106, (D.C., January 15, 2020), seeks monetary damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief under the First Amendment. Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a non-profit membership organization that advocates the practice of private medicine, ethical medicine, and the patient-physician relationship. AAPS contests Schiff's views on anti-vaccination movements as violations of freedom of expression and of the Communication Decency Act of 1996 and common law tort of abuse of power. Katarina Verrelli is a New York resident who claims that videos "Vaxxed" and "Shoot 'Em Up: The Truth About Vaccines" were removed from Amazon's streaming platform for its views on vaccination, allegedly on the direct and/or indirect prodding of Schiff as a member of Congress.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew L. Schlafly, Esq. General Counsel ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS 939 Old Chester Rd. Far Hills, NJ 07931 Tel: (908) 719-8608 Fax: (908) 934-9207 Email: aschlafly@aol.com - and - Lawrence J. Joseph, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J. JOSEPH 1250 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 700-1A Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 355-9452 Fax: (202) 318-2254 Email: ljoseph@larryjoseph.com ALSCO INC: Sued by Salas in California Over Employment Disputes --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alsco, Inc. The case is captioned as Fernando Rodarte Salas, Individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alsco, Inc. and Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2019-00272168-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 27, 2019). The suit involves employment-related issues. Alsco is a linen and uniform-rental business service provider to restaurants, health care organizations, the automotive industry and industrial facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 222 N Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245-5629 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Mann Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ Altec Industries, Inc., removed the case captioned as ROBERT EARL MANN, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. ALTEC INDUSTRIES, INC., an Alabama Corporation, Case No. FCS054121 (Filed Dec. 26, 2019), from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Solano to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 5, 2020. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-at-00126 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that Altec failed to fully compensate him and other persons, who worked for Altec, including failure to pay proper minimum wage and overtime, to provide meal periods, and to provide rest breaks, in violation to the California Labor Code. Altec Industries distributes tools, equipment and offers services for electric utility, telecommunications, contractor, and tree care markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq. FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 818 456 6168 Facsimile: 888 505 0868 E-mail: josh@falakassalaw.com - and - Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310 975 1493 Facsimile: 310 675 0861 E-Mail: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Carolyn B. Hall, Esq. Michael D. Wilson, Jr., Esq. Lyne A. Richardson, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Steuart Tower, Suite 1300 One Market Plaza San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: 415-442-4810 Facsimile: 415-442-4870 E-mail: carolyn.hall@ogletree.com michael.wilson@ogletree.com lyne.richardson@ogletree.com AMESBURY CHEVROLET: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ingram Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- KARYN INGRAM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AMESBURY CHEVROLET, INC. and BRIAN FECTEAU, Case No. 1977CV01760 (Mass. Super., Dec. 30, 2019), seeks damages in connection with the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages under Massachusetts Wage Laws. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in at least one week during the class period. The Plaintiff also worked on at least one Sunday or covered holiday during the period but the Defendants did not pay her, or members of the Class, overtime pay. The Plaintiffs worked as a salesperson for the Defendants. The Defendants operate an automobile dealership. Brian Fecteau is the President and Treasurer of Amesbury Chevrolet, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Gardner, Esq. Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq. GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C. One State Street, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: 617-390-7570 E-mail: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com ANTHEM BLUE: Kelekian Balks at Lesser Pay Rate for Podiatrists -------------------------------------------------------------- ARA KELEKIAN, D.P.M. on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ANTHEM BLUE CROSS LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, a California Corporation; BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 19VECV01855 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 27, 2019), alleges that in the last four years, the Defendants have adopted and published fee schedules that incorporated a practice of reimbursing Podiatrists, like the Plaintiff, at a substantially different and lesser rate than orthotists providing functional orthotics. Under this policy, a podiatric physician, who prepares a cast mold from the patient's foot and provides a set of functional foot orthotics, is paid approximately $277 by the Defendants, the Plaintiff notes. The Plaintiff explains that the orthotist, who takes a cast based on a prescription given to him/her by a doctor, is paid approximately $411 by the Defendants for the same services. That is a difference of $134 per set of castings and orthotics, or approximately 48% more than what the Defendants pay to Podiatrists, the Plaintiff argues. Orthotist/prosthetist laboratories in California, who are contracted with Anthem, fabricate foot orthoses from prescriptions given to them by a doctor. Orthotists do not use any E/M coding as they are not doctors, do not perform a biomechanical evaluation, and are merely following the prescription given to them by a doctor. The orthotic produced by the podiatrist and the orthotist are--for present purposes--functional equivalents and largely interchangeable in the marketplace. Market for the present purpose is defined to mean the market for foot orthotics. Despite their functional equivalence and the additional medical services required and performed of podiatric doctors, doctors of podiatry are paid substantially less than the amount paid by the Defendants to orthotists for the same functional foot orthotics, the Plaintiff contends. He argues that this price discrimination in the reimbursement for orthotics provided by qualified Doctors of Podiatric Medicine and by lesser trained orthotists is an unfair means of discrimination and constitutes an unfair business practice. Dr. Kelekian specializes in podiatric medicine and podiatric surgery. Dr. Kelekian is board certified in foot surgery by the American Board of Foot and Ankle Surgery. He is affiliated with several organizations, including the American Podiatric Medical Association, the California Podiatric Medical Association and Los Angeles County Podiatric Medical Society. Anthem, Inc., is a provider of health insurance in the United States. Anthem Blue Cross is the trade name of Blue Cross of California and Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Keith Greer, Esq. Staci L. Labovitz, Esq. Jonathan Berger, Esq. C. Tyler Greer, Esq. GREER & ASSOCIATES, A.P.C. 16855 West Bernardo Dr. Suite 255 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 613-6677 Facsimile: (858) 613-6680 AURORA CANNABIS: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Hagens Berman has filed a class action Complaint on behalf of investors in Aurora Cannabis Inc. (NYSE: ACB). The firm urges ACB investors who have suffered losses in excess of $500,000 to submit their losses now to learn if they qualify to recover their investment losses. Class Period: Oct. 23, 2018 - Jan. 6, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Jan. 21, 2020 Sign Up: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/ACB Contact An Attorney Now: ACB@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Hagens Berman's Aurora Cannabis (ACB) Securities Class Action: The Complaint is brought on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Aurora Cannabis securities during the Expanded Class Period – between Oct. 23, 2018 and Jan. 6, 2020, inclusive. The Complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and captioned Eaton v. Aurora Cannabis Inc., et al., (Case No. 1:20-cv-00274), pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). According to the detailed Complaint filed by Hagens Berman, throughout the Extended 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) 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 products, 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 Complaint alleges that the truth emerged through a series of disclosures occurring between Oct. 23, 2018 and Jan. 6, 2020, when the Company announced that it would be selling one of its largest greenhouses to raise cash. As a result of these disclosures, the value of Aurora stock has consistently decreased, damaging investors. "We're focused on recovering investors' losses and proving Aurora misled investors about its operations and growth initiatives," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you purchased shares of Aurora stock and suffered significant losses, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Lead Plaintiff Process: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Aurora securities during the Expanded Class Period to seek appointment 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. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Aurora should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email ACB@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman -- https://www.hbsslaw.com -- is a national law firm with nine offices in eight cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. [GN] AUSTRALIA: Morrison Faces Class Suit Over Climate Change Inaction ----------------------------------------------------------------- Antwan Echeverria, writing for The Media Times, reports that a new online petition calling for a class action lawsuit against the Morrison government for "failing to tackle climate change" is simply "partisan", said David Crisafulli, Minister of Shadow Tourism in Queensland. The class action lawsuit against the federal government already has over 63,000 signatures with a total target of 75,000. As part of the Change.Org online petition, the Morrison government has been accused of "not increasing its emissions targets [and] increasing its renewable energy targets and failing people in Australia". "They use shady numbers, they use shady arguments, and that's what we expect," said Crisafulli Sky News presenter Paul Murray. Mr. Crisafulli said it would be "wonderful if we could have an adequate debate on environmental policy" instead of using this "angry" tactic. "You have this class action lawsuit and this angry nature, it won't go anywhere," he said. "In the end, it does nothing but share us further." [GN] BANK OF NEW YORK: Mogollon Suit Moved From D.N.J. to N.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as SERGIO MOGOLLON and COLLEEN LOWE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON and GEORGE W. ARNETT III, Case No. 3:19-cv-08235 (Filed March 8, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Dec. 30, 2019. The Northern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03070 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of individuals and entities, who were allegedly defrauded by the Defendants as a result of BNYM's role in facilitating the R. Allen Stanford Ponzi scheme. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiffs incurred substantial financial losses. BNYM is an American worldwide banking and financial services holding company headquartered in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: 973 994 1700 Facsimile: 973 994 1744 - and - Michael E. Criden, Esq. Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq. CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A. 7301 SW 57th Court, Ste. 515 South Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: 305 357 9000 Facsimile: 305 357 9050 E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com lgrossman@cridenlove.com BLUCORA INC: Pomerantz Law Probing Claims on Behalf of Investors ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Blucora, Inc. (NASDAQ: BCOR). Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 9980. The investigation concerns whether Blucora and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. On January 16, 2020, Blucora announced that its President and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), John Clendening, "has departed his roles as executive and member of the Board of Directors" and that Blucora "anticipates announcing a new CEO by the end of January 2020." Blucora stated that Clendening's "departure results from differences in views on the scope of Mr. Clendening's authority as CEO." On this news, Blucora's stock price fell sharply during intraday trading on January 16, 2020. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Tel: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980 Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Scott Securities Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc., et al., removed the case captioned as RAYMOND SCOTT and CARLA SCOTT v. BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED, INC; THE CLUB AT BIG BEAR VILLAGE; THE CLUB AT BIG BEAR VILLAGE MASTER ASSOCIATION; THE CLUB AT BIG BEAR VILLAGE FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOCIATION; BLUEGREEN RESORTS MANAGEMENT, INC; VACATION TRUST, INC; BLUEGREEN VACATIONS CORPORATION; BLUEGREEN RESORTS; BLUEGREEN VACATION CLUB; BBX CAPITAL CORPORATION; BFC FINANCIAL CORPORATION; and SHAWN B. PEARSON and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. BCV-14 19-102842 (Filed Oct. 4, 2019), from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Dec. 27, 2019. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01807-DAD-JLT to the proceeding. The complaint seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendants from continuing to market and sell unregistered securities in violation of the Securities Act. On June 5, 2015, the Scotts purchased 20,000 annual points in The Club at Big Bear Village for a price of $27,850 following a sales pitch they received in the sales office of Bluegreen in Las Vegas, Nevada. On Aug. 22, 2015, the Scotts purchased an additional 25,000 annual points in The Club at Big Bear Village for a price of $30,850.50, following a sales pitch they received in the sales office of Bluegreen in Las Vegas, Nevada. During the course of each sales presentation, the Bluegreen salespeople represented to the Scotts that their points were tied to real property, that the points would increase in value over time as a result of efforts bestowed by Bluegreen, that the points could be sold for a profit and that the Scotts could bequeath the points to their heirs, says the complaint. Bluegreen Vacations offers real estate services. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants are selling purchasers investment contracts and, hence, securities, even if they are not explicitly described as such and even though the written contracts contradict in part the promises of the sales pitches.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: D. Dennis La, Esq. Michael Rapkine, Esq. ANGLIN, FLEWELLING, RASMUSSEN CAMPBELL & TRYTTEN LLP 301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 1100 Pasadena, CA 91101-4158 Telephone: (626) 535-1900 Facsimile: (626) 577-7764 E-mail: dla@afrct.com mrapkine@afrct.com BUNNY FOO FOO: Faces Arriola Suit over TCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------ The case, MICHELLE ARRIOLA, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. BUNNY FOO FOO LABS LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00912 (N.D. Ill., February 7, 2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The complaint alleges that the Defendant sends unsolicited telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number to promote its business and/or its customers business. As a direct result of these violations, Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals experienced invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of their daily lives. Bunny Foo Foo Labs, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company whose principal office is located at 401 West Superior Street, Chicago, Illinois. The company directs, markets and provides its business activities throughout the State of Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com BURGER GUYS: Thomas and Siewnarine Sue over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALEX THOMAS and KEVIN SIEWNARINE, individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BURGER GUYS OF AVENTURA, LLC and BURGER GUYS OF SUNNY ISLES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-20561 (S.D. Fla., February 6, 2020) is a collective action brought against Defendants to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and to seek liquidated damages or pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants willfully, knowingly and/or recklessly violated the FLSA mandate by not paying overtime compensation to all managers and assistant managers who work more than 40 hours per week. Plaintiffs Thomas and Siewnarine were both employed by Defendants as managers. Defendants Burger Guys of Aventura, LLC and Burger Guys of Sunny Isles, LLC own and operate a burger restaurant chain. They are both Florida Limited Liability Company located in Miami-Dade County and both engage in an industry affecting interstate commerce with annual gross sales in excess of $500,000.00 within the meaning of the FLSA.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert S. Norell, Esq. ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A. 300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305 Plantation, FL 33317 Tel: (954) 617-6017 Fax: (954) 617-6018 E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com CANADA: Class Action Seeks to Have More Federal Workers Included ---------------------------------------------------------------- CTV News Montreal reports that a Quebec City law firm has filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada to have more federal civil servants included in a class-action lawsuit against the federal government over the faulty Phoenix pay system. The system, which was implemented in the federal public service in February 2016, has experienced countless failures since its launch. Many federal government employees have not been paid for long periods of time, have been paid less than expected or have been overpaid since the Phoenix system was implemented. In April 2018, a Quebec Superior Court judge authorized a class-action seeking to compensate victims of the Phoenix fiasco. Last January 16, the law firm Sarailis filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in hopes of enlarging the group covered by the class-action to include non-unionized federal public servants who do not have access to a separate grievance process (as their unionized counterparts do). Quebec's Court of Appeal, the province's top court, had rejected an earlier request by the firm to broaden the class-action to include the non-unionized federal workers not currently covered by the lawsuit. The class-action is seeking a base amount of $500 per worker affected by the Phoenix problems. As many as 70,000 workers are believed to have had their pay affected by issues with the Phoenix system. [GN] CHERRY HILL: Ayers Seeks Overtime Wages for Misclassified Workers ----------------------------------------------------------------- REBEKAH LOPICCOLO AYERS, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CHERRY HILL PROGRAMS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 19CECG04643 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., Dec. 30, 2019), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all wages owed, including overtime wages, and failed to provide lawful meal periods under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that he and class members were misclassified as exempt, and they worked many hours for which they were not paid and were not provided with meal or rest breaks. Cherry Hill operates in over 900 venues across the U.S. and Canada, including in California during the Christmas and Easter Seasons. The company provides photography services at various sites like malls and shopping centers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Christina M. Lucio, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: James@Jameshawkinsaplc.com Christina@Jameshawkinsaplc.com COINBASE INC: Offers Nearly $1MM Settlement to Cryptsy Victims -------------------------------------------------------------- Yilun Cheng, writing for The Block, reports that Coinbase agreed in 2019 to offer a $962,500 settlement to former customers of the now-defunct crypto exchange Cryptsy for allegedly failing to stop the laundering of stolen coins, according to a CoinDesk report. Cryptsy first claimed insolvency in Jan. 2016 following a supposed hacking incident of approximately 13,000 bitcoin and 300,000 litecoin. According to an official blog post published back then, now inaccessible, the exchange still owed around 10,000 bitcoin to account holders. Customers - who accused the exchange of fraud in the wake of its collapse after months of funds withdrawal issues - responded with a class action lawsuit against Cryptsy founder Paul Vernon over his alleged negligence, unjust enrichment, conversion, and violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, CoinDesk previously reported. Cryptsy victims then alleged that the supposedly hacked coins were in fact stolen by Vernon and laundered through Coinbase. In Dec. 2016, they filed a followup complaint accusing Coinbase of abetting the theft of around around $8.2 million worth of cryptocurrency. The exchange tried to suspend the case and settle the dispute through arbitration, but the motion was denied by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra. After Coinbase unsuccessfully filed an appeal to Marra's decision, the lawsuit was close to seeing a jury trial. However, in late 2019, Coinbase agreed to pay Cryptsy victims $952,500 in settlement, attempting to conclude the prolonged legal battle, according court documents dated Nov. 27 and Dec. 10. The settlement is expected to be either approved or modified during a hearing scheduled on April 17, 2020. David Silver, one of the plaintiff's attorneys, applauded Coinbase for "stepping up and resolving" the case, CoinDesk reported. [GN] CONNER LOGISTICS: Bid for Figueroa Deal Approval Filing Due Feb. 24 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, UBALDO FIGUEROA, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONNER LOGISTICS, INC., a California Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01004-LJO-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California continued the Jan. 23, 2020 deadline to file the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement to Feb. 24, 2020. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/Jt4Py2 from Leagle.com. Ubaldo Figueroa, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Aparajit Bhowmik -- aj@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Kyle R. Nordrehaug -- kyle@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug and Bhowmik, Norman Blumenthal -- NORM@BAMLAWCA.COM -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, LLP, Ruchira Piya Mukherjee -- piya@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik & Victoria Bree Rivapalacio -- victoria@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. Conner Logistics, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, represented by Russell K. Ryan -- rkr@mmwlawfirm.com -- Motschiedler, Michaelides, Wishon, Brewer & Ryan, LLP. CREDIT LAW: Williston's Bid to Quash Subpoena in Ensminger Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARK ENSMINGER, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT LAW CENTER, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-2147-JWL (D. Kan.), Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied Keith N. Williston's second motion to quash a subpoena from the Defendants. Williston is not a party to the litigation. Plaintiff Ensminger, filed the putative class-action complaint against the Defendants for violation of the Credit Repair Organizations Act. Williston is an attorney who previously represented the Plaintiff in another action in the Court but does not represent the Paintiff in the instant case. Since Williston left the Defendants' firm, they have been in an ongoing dispute that has spilled over into the lawsuit. On Nov. 6, 2019, Williston filed a motion to quash the first subpoena from the Defendants. Magistrate Judge O'Hara U.S. denied the motion because it was not filed in the district where compliance was required. Williston also filed a motion for protective order, which the Court denied. The Defendants served a second subpoena on Dec. 9, 2019, this time for production in Overland Park, Kansas. Williston has filed a second motion to quash a subpoena from the Defendants. Magistrate Judge O'hara finds that although there is no time constraint placed on the subpoena, there is a subject limitation: communication and documents referencing plaintiff, the Credit Repair Organizations Act, and claims against credit repair organizations, including the Defendants. Although the Defendants' ultimate argument is not totally clear to the court, they insinuate Williston may have a financial interest in the litigation and some financial agreements exist between him and the Plaintiff's counsel. The Defendants contend Williston has relevant information, related to the Plaintiff (the putative class representative) and his stake in the controversy. Evidence related to the class representative's stake in the controversy or any interests conflicting with the interest of the class -- which are sought by the subpoena -- are facially relevant. Williston does not meet his burden to show these documents are not relevant. Next, Williston argues he should not be compelled to expend the time and energy to create and submit a privilege log. Compliance with a subpoena will inevitably involve some measure of burden, so the Magistrate finds that will not deny a party access to relevant discovery merely because compliance inconveniences a non-party or subjects it to some expense. As the Court previously stated, Williston is an attorney who can create a privilege log. His argument that he would be forced to do extensive searches of his email despite being a solo practitioner is unpersuasive to the Court. Finally, the Magistrate finds that the subpoena does not impose an undue burden. The materials sought are relevant to the evaluation of class certification in the case. The Magistrate takes Williston's point that the Defendants should seek the discovery from the Plaintiff. He agrees with the Defendants may be able to obtain many of these documents through the Plaintiff. But he notes the Defendants are entitled to seek discovery from non-parties, even though it is often more inconvenient and expensive than it is from parties. Furthermore, the scope of the subpoena goes beyond those overlapping documents; it also seeks documents that "reference or discuss" the Plaintiff. For all these reasons, Magistrate Judge O'Hara denied Williston's motion to quash. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/QIAIXH from Leagle.com. Mark Ensminger, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alan J. Stecklein -- aj@kcconsumerlawyer.com -- Stecklein & Rapp Chartered, Amy L. Wells, Keogh Law, Ltd., pro hac vice, Keith J. Keogh, Keogh Law, Ltd., pro hac vice, Matthew S. Robertson, Stecklein & Rapp Chartered & Michael H. Rapp, Stecklein & Rapp Chartered. Credit Law Center, LLC, also known as Thomas Andrew Addleman L.L.C., doing business as Credit Law Center & Thomas Addleman, also known as Tom Addleman, Defendants, represented by Chad C. Beaver -- admin@beaver-law.com -- Beaver Law Firm, LLC, Jordan E. Wilkow -- JWilkow@tdrlawfirm.com -- Tabet DiVito & Rothstein, LLC, pro hac vice & Timothy A. Hudson -- thudson@tdrlawfirm.com -- Tabet DiVito & Rothstein, LLC, pro hac vice. Keith N. Williston, Interested Party, pro se. CV SCIENCES: Fistel Says Shareholder Suit Survives Dismissal Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential claims on behalf of CV Sciences, Inc. (Other OTC: CVSI) ("CV Sciences" or the "Company") against certain of its officers and directors. In 2018, a Securities Class Action Complaint was filed on behalf of those who purchased securities of CV Sciences, between June 19, 2017 through August 20, 2018. Recently, the class action lawsuit survived the Defendants' attempts to have the case dismissed. According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) CV Sciences received a non-final rejection from the U.S. Patent Trademark Office ("USPTO") on April 27, 2017, regarding its principal pharmaceutical product, CVSI-007; (2) CV Sciences received a final rejection from the USPTO on December 14, 2017, regarding CVSI-007; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about CV Sciences' business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. If you have held CV Sciences continuously since at least June 19, 2017, you may have standing to hold CV Sciences harmless from the alleged harm caused by the officers and directors of the Company by making them personally responsible. You may also be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance to prevent future wrongdoing. If you are interested in learning more about the investigation, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number. Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York, and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com. Contact: Jim Baker, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP Tel: 619-814-4471 Email: jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN] DA ON LLC: Lee Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- CHANG K LEE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Da On, LLC, Jay Kim, Yu R Kim, and Mr. In Woo Jung, Case No. 1:19-cv-05841-CAP (N.D. Ga., Dec. 30, 2019), seeks to recover under the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime wages owed to the Plaintiff and all similarly situated persons, who are presently or were formerly employed by the Defendants. The Plaintiff and similarly situated Defendants' employees, who opt in to the action, allege that they were paid in an unlawful manner and are entitled to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Beginning on Jan. 7, 2019, and continuing until May 27, 2019, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at 6035 Peachtree Rd., in Atlanta, Georgia. Da On operates a Korean BBQ restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ellen Lee, Esq. CANA LAW, LLC 3006 Clairmont Road, Suite 115 Atlanta, GA 30329 Telephone: 678.302.1938 Facsimile: 404.601.1391 E-mail: ellen@canalaw.com DARLING INGREDIENTS: Denies Odor Allegations in Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Ethan Forman, writing for Salem News, reports that a spokesperson for Texas-based Darling Ingredients, Inc., which operates the Rousselot Peabody, Inc., gelatin manufacturing plant on Washington Street, said the company denies allegations in a class action lawsuit filed in Superior Court by Peabody residents who claim "noxious odors" invaded their properties last summer. "Rousselot values its relationship with the Peabody community, strives to be a good neighbor, and takes seriously its regulatory responsibilities," said Melissa Gaither, vice president, global communications and sustainability for Darling Ingredients, in an email. "To ensure that it complies with its regulatory permits and mission to be a good environmental steward, Rousselot works with state and local regulator bodies including the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the city of Peabody," she said. "Over the past five years, Rousselot has also made numerous modifications to its Peabody facilities, including projects specific to air emission quality." "While Rousselot does not discuss the details of litigation matters," she said, "it is important to understand that Rousselot denies the allegations in the complaint filed in Essex County and will take all necessary measures to defend itself and protect its reputation in the community." The class action complaint was filed around the New Year in Essex Superior Court against the plant's owners by Lynn Street residents Michael Baranofsky and Kimberley Gale, and James Street resident Lawrence Essember, on their behalf and others like them, court documents state. In filing the suit, the plaintiffs say their counsel spoke with more than 55 others who live near the plant at 227 Washington St. about the foul odors, which have been an ongoing issue for years in the neighborhood. They say the company has failed to address the problem in any lasting way. The plaintiffs say the odors have interfered with their ability to "enjoy their homes and property," while reducing property values. The lawsuit defines the class as "owner/occupants and renters" within a mile of the plant, estimating more than 7,000 households are within the "class area." During a heat wave last summer, about 35 to 40 residents who live in the vicinity of the plant complained to the Board of Health of an odor that smelled like "rotten flesh." The board fined the plant $3,000 -- $1,000 per day between July 23-25 for "excessive odors." In the summer, Gaither, said "an accumulated level of solids in the system" led to the odors. Officials pointed to problems with an 80-foot clarifier tank used in wastewater treatment. At the time, Gaither said the company was aware of the complaints and it was "taking the appropriate action to address the matter." She said the facility has made investments in various odor abatement projects. Rousselot acquired the plant in December 2011, which had operated for many years as Eastman Gelatine. The plant has been in operation for about 137 years and employs about 100 people. It's located adjacent to the middle school, police station and numerous homes to the north and south. [GN] DUTTON RANCH: Hernandez Seeks to Certify H-2A Workers Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit entitled OMAR HERNANDEZ HERNANDEZ, and ANTONIO HERNANDEZ SANTIAGO on behalf of themselves and other aggrieved employees v. DUTTON RANCH CORPORATION, and DOES 1-40, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 3:19-cv-00817-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Plaintiff Omar Hernandez asks the Court to issue an order: (1) conditionally certifying the lawsuit as a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), with the class to include all H-2A workers who worked for Dutton Ranch in California since October 12, 2017 through the present; (2) approve sending the proposed collective action notice and consent to sue forms to all potential opt-in plaintiffs; (3) order that the Defendant produce, in electronic format, the names, last known current addresses, last known permanent addresses, telephone numbers, WhatsApp contact numbers, e-mail addresses, Facebook usernames and job titles, of all potential opt-in plaintiffs to enable the delivery of the notice; (4) grant opt-in plaintiffs four months from the date of mailing and posting of the notice for potential opt-in plaintiffs to postmark or return their consent forms; and (5) order the Defendant to post the collective action notice, in Spanish and English, in each field restroom and trailer, house, camp barrack and/or apartment used to house H-2A workers currently working at Dutton Ranch. Plaintiff Omar Hernandez Hernandez seeks to represent current and former H-2A workers hired by Dutton Ranch Corp. ("Dutton Ranch"), to harvest grapes and apples. H-2A workers were entitled to and did not receive minimum wage for every hour worked due to Dutton Ranch's uniform policies and practices of failing to reimburse H-2A workers for various expenses and their failure to compensate H-2A workers for all their time worked, the Plaintiff alleges. The Court will commence a hearing on March 12, 2020, at 1:30 p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] Plaintiff Omar Hernandez Hernandez is represented by: Josephine Weinberg, Esq. Ana Vicente de Castro, Esq. CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. 3 Williams Road Salinas, CA 93950 Telephone: (831) 757-5221 Facsimile: (831) 757-6212 E-mail: jweinberg@crla.org avicente@crla.org - and - Estella M. Cisneros, Esq. CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. 3747 E. Shields Ave. Fresno, CA 93726 Telephone: (559) 441-8721 Facsimile: (559) 441-0724 E-mail: ecisneros@crla.org The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter Rukin, Esq. Valerie Brender, Esq. RUKIN HYLAND & RIGGIN LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 290 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 421-1800 Facsimile: (415) 421-1700 E-mail: prukin@rukinhyland.com vbrender@rukinhyland.com DYNAMIC F&B CONCEPTS: Bennet Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts ------------------------------------------------------------ John Bennett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dynamic F&B Concepts Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-60087 (S.D. Fla., January 15, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Dynamic F&B Concepts operates as "Tark's of Dania," a restaurant in Dania Beach. It attempted to contact Bennett via SMS on her cellular telephone offering its menu using an automatic telephone dialing system. Bennett did not give his express consent to be contacted in this manner, says the complaint. [BN] Barbieri is represented by: Thomas J. Patti, Esq Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Facsimile: (855) 529-9540 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com tom@jibraellaw.com ENERGY TRANSFER: Faces Shareholder Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a government employees' retirement fund has become the latest entity to claim it lost money when allegations became public that Energy Transfer LP coerced Pennsylvania state employees for a permit for its nearly $3 billion Mariner East natural gas pipeline system. Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System filed a putative shareholder class action on Jan. 10, accusing Energy Transfer of violating the Securities Exchange Act in federal court. [GN] EQUIFAX INC: Georgia Court OKs $380.5-Million Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Duncan Riley, writing for Silicon Angle, reports that the long-running saga that followed the historic 2017 hack of credit reporting agency Equifax Inc. is nearing its end as a court in Georgia ruled on January 13 that the company will pay $380.5 million to resolve all outstanding claims. The upfront figure, a partial discount on the up to $700 million figure the company agreed to pay in July 2019, covers a class action lawsuit filed by those who had their data stolen. Under the terms of the lawsuit, Equifax will place the $380.5 million into a fund where those affected and are party to the class-action lawsuit can withdraw up to $20,000. Equifax may also be required to add $125 million to the fund for out-of-pocket claims. Lawsuit claimants are also entitled to 10 years of free credit monitoring or cash compensation if they already have a credit monitoring service. There were approximately 15 million members of the class action lawsuit as of December out of 146.6 million victims. In addition, the settlement requires Equifax to pay at least $1 billion for improved data security and as much as $2 billion depending on the number of credit monitoring claims, Bloomberg Law reported. Although the headline figure may seem low, Equifax's costs are far higher again. As is typical in legal cases in the U.S., the lawyers are the biggest winners, with the class action lawsuit counsel awarded both $77.5 million as a percentage based fee along with $1.4 billion in litigation expenses. The $1.4 billion paid to the lawyers places the settlement in the top five most expensive legal cases in U.S. history and possibly the most expensive legal fee in history in a case that was never seriously disputed in court. Sordid doesn't fully describe the hack of Equifax, which ended up with the majority of adult American citizens having their credit rating histories stolen. The story started with Equifax disclosing a hack in September 2017, when the company initially claimed that the records of 143 million people had been stolen. That figure was raised several times since then. Of the 146.6 million individuals who had data stolen, almost all of them had Social Security numbers exposed. Some 99 million saw their address information exposed, 20.3 million had phone numbers revealed and 17.6 million people's driver's licenses were breached. Along the way, it was disclosed that not only was Equifax aware of the hack sometime before disclosing it but top executives also illegally sold shares based on the information. That resulted in former Equifax Senior Vice President Jun Ying being jailed for insider trading in June. [GN] ESCOBAR CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Perez Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARCO ANTONIO PEREZ PEREZ, and JOSE EDUARDO SANCHEZ ARIAS, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ESCOBAR CONSTRUCTION, INC.; NATIONS CONSTRUCTION, INC.; and JHONY A. ESCOBAR, Case No. 3:19-cv-01623-MAD-ML (N.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 2019), asserts claim against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law arising from the Defendants' failure to pay their employees, including the Plaintiffs, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Plaintiffs are employed by the Defendants as construction workers. Mr. Perez was employed from Dec. 1, 2017, to Oct. 30, 2018. Mr. Arias was employed from Sept. 15, 2017, to Oct. 1, 2018. Escobar Construction is a service based drywall company specializing in drywall installation and finishing, patching, repairs, interior finishes, and textures. Nations construction is a general contractor company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 EXELON CORP: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Feb. 14 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming February 14, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of Exelon Corporation ("Exelon" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EXC) investors who purchased securities between February 9, 2019 and November 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. On July 15, 2019, Exelon announced that the Company and Commonwealth Edison ("ComEd"), which is owned by Exelon, had received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney concerning Exelon's lobbying activities in Illinois. Then, on October 9, 2019, Exelon disclosed receipt of a second grand jury subpoena regarding its communications with Illinois State Senator Martin Sandoval. On October 15, 2019, Exelon announced the abrupt exit of Anne Pramaggiore, Chief Executive Officer of Exelon Utilities. Analysts immediately identified the criminal subpoenas and Pramaggiore's abrupt resignation as "being directly related to each other." On this news, Exelon's share price fell $2.15, or nearly 5%, to close at $44.91 per share on October 16, 2019, thereby injuring investors. Then, on October 31, 2019, the Company revealed that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission had also opened an investigation into the Company's lobbying activities, but declined to state whether the investigations went beyond Illinois. On this news, Exelon's share price fell $1.17, or nearly 3%, to close at $45.49 per share on October 31, 2019, thereby injuring investors further. 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 Exelon and/or its employees were engaged in unlawful lobbying activities; (2) that the foregoing increased the risk of a criminal investigation into Exelon; (3) that ComEd's revenues were in part the product of unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Exelon securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than February 14, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. Contact: Charles Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP Los Angeles Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 Website: www.glancylaw.com E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com [GN] EXELON CORP: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Feb. 14 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in the class action that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Exelon Corporation ("Exelon" or the "Company") (EXC) between February 9, 2019 and November 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Exelon during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than February 14, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. Exelon investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358. Exelon, incorporated in Pennsylvania and headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, is a utility services holding company that serves as the parent company of the Commonwealth Edison Company ("ComEd"), the largest electric utility in Illinois, and the sole electric provider in Chicago. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Exelon and/or its employees were engaged in unlawful lobbying activities; (2) this conduct increased the risk of a criminal investigation into Exelon; (3) ComEd's revenues were partly the product of unlawful conduct and therefore unsustainable; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 15, 2019, Exelon disclosed that it had received a grand jury document subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois ("USAO") concerning Exelon's "lobbying activities in the State of Illinois." On this news, the price of Exelon stock price fell $0.18 per share, or 0.37% from a previous closing price of $49.06 on July 12, 2019, to close at $48.88 per share on July 15, 2019. On October 9, 2019, Exelon disclosed that the USAO sought records of communications with Illinois State Senator Martin Sandoval, chairman of the Illinois Senate Transportation Committee. Exelon also revealed that it had formed a Special Overnight Committee in June 2019 to oversee compliance with the subpoenas. On October 15, 2019, shortly before market close, Exelon announced the departure of Chief Executive Officer Anne Pramaggiore, "effective immediately." On this news, Exelon's stock price dropped $2.15 per share, or 4.57% from a closing price of $47.06 on October 15, 2019, to close at $44.91 per share on October 16, 2019, on elevated trading volume. On October 31, 2019, Exelon revealed that on October 22, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission had notified the Company that it had opened an investigation into Exelon's lobbying activities. On this news, the price of Exelon dropped $1.17 per share, or 2.51% from a previous closing price of $46.66 on October 30, 2019, to close at $45.49 per share on October 31, 2019. The next day, on November 1, 2019, 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, "the 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." Additionally, "the 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, the price of Exelon stock declined an additional $0.15, or 0.33% from the previous day's close, to close at $45.34 per share on November 1, 2019. Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America." EXPERIENCE THE RIDE: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cedric Bishop, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Experience The Ride NY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00407 (S.D. N.Y., January 15, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Experience The Ride NY is a tour operator with an online site, https://experiencetheride.com. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Justin A. Zeller, Esq. John M. Gurrieri, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007-2036 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com FARMER'S FRESH: Cruz Seeks Compensation for Missed Breaks --------------------------------------------------------- Alicia Cruz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Farmer's Fresh Market Place, Inc., Defendant, Case 20-cv-00320 (N.D. Ill., January 15, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Farmer's Fresh Market Place operates as Farmer's Best Market. Cruz worked at their supermarket located at 6420 W. Fullerton Avenue, Chicago where Cruz worked from June 27, 2019 through December 15, 2019. Cruz was required to work her entire shift uninterrupted, but was deducted one half hour each shift for a lunch break she was not allowed to take, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos G. Becerra, Esq. BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC 11 E. Adams St., Suite 1401 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 957-9005 Facsimile: (888) 826-5848 E-mail: cbecerra@law-rb.com FARMERS GROUP: Grigson's Bid for Class Cert. Tossed Due to Accord ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Lee Yeakel dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit entitled CHARLES GRIGSON AND ROBERT VALE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS v. FARMERS GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-00088-LY (W.D. Tex.). On December 16, 2019, the Court rendered an Order Granting Preliminarily Approval of Class Action Settlement and Direction of Notice Under Rule 23(e). In light of the preliminary approval of the class-action settlement in this cause, Yeakel dismissed without prejudice: * Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed on March 12, 2019; * Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and Strike the Affidavit of Michael Averill filed on May 20, 2019; and * Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and Strike the Declaration and Report of Dr. James A. Roberts filed on July 18, 2019.[CC] FIRST SOLAR: Class Action Plaintiffs Secure $350MM Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Holly Roach, writing for Professional Pensions, reports that the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme and the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme have been successful as lead plaintiffs in a US securities fraud case, securing a $350 million (GBP270 million) settlement on behalf of investors. The schemes -- who were represented by US securities class action law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd -- won a major victory in a class action case which alleged that solar panel producer First Solar made false and misleading statements about defects plaguing its products and failed to disclose material adverse facts about its business, operations, and prospects. The case The case alleged that First Solar not only concealed these defects from shareholders, but also misrepresented the cost and scope of the defects and reported false information on the company's financial statements. The firm's executives were accused of discovering a manufacturing and design defect that caused the company's modules to suffer rapid power loss in hot climates, and knowingly avoiding disclosing it. According to court documents, the defendants concealed this problem from investors until July 2012, even though First Solar later admitted that it had "identified" and "addressed" the problem in June 2009. The plaintiffs initially requested a jury trial in August 2012, but the $350m settlement was agreed earlier in January and will resolve claims on behalf of all those who purchased or acquired First Solar shares between April 2008 to February 2012. The Mineworkers' Pension Scheme and the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme purchased the publicly traded securities of First Solar during the class period and were "damaged as the result of the defendants' wrongdoing", according to the court documents. The defendants initially denied all claims brought by the schemes but the jury trial that was set for 7 January this year was vacated when the parties revealed they had reached a settlement when the court was called to order. A spokesperson for the two schemes commented: "We are pleased that a $350m financial settlement has been reached on behalf of all members of the class. We believe it is important that asset owners hold companies and executives to account and this approach forms part of our commitment to being a good steward of our members' pension assets." First Solar did not admit to any wrongdoing as part of the settlement. Chief executive Mark Widmar explains: "We are confident that resolving this matter is the right business decision for First Solar and its shareholders." Widmar adds: "While we are confident in the facts and the merits of our position, we believe it is prudent to end this protracted and uncertain class litigation process, and focus on driving forward." "We remain in a strong financial position, are pleased with our progress and our contracted customer pipeline, and are focused on executing our global strategy and serving our customers." 'Our mission' Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd partner Mark Solomon adds: "This result is rendered possible only because there are responsible institutions such as the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme and the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme whose stewards are willing to stand up and spearhead the cases. "So long as we can provide and fund such opportunities for them, it is our mission to do so." The lawsuit -- originally filed in federal court in Arizona in 2012 -- was brought on behalf of all those who had purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of First Solar between the class period. UK pension funds getting involved in cases like this, while not unexpected to happen, are rare. Yet, Solomon explains: "It is becoming less unusual with several securities class actions being led by UK funds." Last February, Norfolk Pension Fund was successful as lead plaintiff in a class action case which found Puma Biotechnology, and its chief executive and board chairman liable for securities fraud. At the time, Norfolk Pension Fund chairwoman Judy Oliver explained: "It is important that asset owners hold companies and executives to account when securities fraud is discovered." Solomon adds: "Securities class actions often are the only available means to recover investment losses caused by fraud and they serve also to deter future misconduct. "Without lead plaintiffs stepping forward to lead the case, the cases simply would not be possible and the ability to recover losses and deter misconduct would be lost." He continues: "In the last 25 years well over $100 billion has been recovered for defrauded investors through these lawsuits." Of course, a concern for pension funds when accepting to take on a case such as this is the high cost involved. Speaking previously to PP, Burges Salmon partner Richard Pettit said schemes have to weigh up the risks and benefits, but that members' savings will not usually be impacted by the outcome. "The promise of a defined benefit pension to the members is not affected, but it affects the money in the fund so therefore could increase the risk of losing that promise. But there won't be an immediate impact to members," he said. The costs associated with prosecuting the cases are advanced by lead counsel and are only reimbursed if there is, and from, a successful recovery. Solomon notes: "Unlike in the UK and many other jurisdictions, in the US the losing party is not responsible for the winner's fees. Accordingly, pension funds, often in deficit with no money to spare and no desire to throw good money after bad, can engage in responsible stewardship in this area, recover losses and promote good governance at no financial risk." The settlement is subject to approval by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. [GN] FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Underpays Employees, Brown Claims -------------------------------------------------------- JANA BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00099-DJH (W.D. Ky., February 7, 2020) is a class action on behalf of all others similarly situated employees of the Defendant, seeking to pursue claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law. The case alleges that the Defendant required its patient service representatives, floaters/trainers and team leads to perform a volume of work assignments that could not be completed within a 40-hour work schedule per week, yet prohibited them from reporting or clocking in more than 40 hours of work per week. Firstsource Solutions USA, LLC is a Kentucky-based for-profit entity that provides hospital revenue cycle management services, involving eligibility and enrollment, hospital and patient accounts receivable. It is a subsidiary of Firstsource Solutions Limited, an India-based company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne L. Gilday, Esq. THE LAWRENCE FIRM PSC 606 Philadelphia Street Covington, KY 41011 Telephone: (859) 578-9130 Facsimile: (859) 578-1032 E-mail: Anne.gilday@lawrencefirm.com - and - Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas R. Conlon, Esq. Ching-Yuan Teng, Esq. BROWN LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com tonyteng@jtblawgroup.com - and - Jessica R. Doogan, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER LLP 250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (800) 274-5297 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com FORD MOTOR: Reaches Focus, Fiesta Bad Transmission Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ford Motor Co. has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit with nearly 2 million owners and former owners of Focus and Fiesta vehicles with bad dual-clutch transmissions known as the DPS6, according to court documents filed late Friday, January 24. A lawyer who helped broker the deal on behalf of consumers said the Ford payout could exceed $100 million. "There's no cap. The truth is, Ford is going to have to pay out claims until they're exhausted," said Tarek Zohdy,Esq. -- Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com -- of Capstone Law in Los Angeles. "In my opinion, Ford will have to deal with these vehicles until people are done filing their claims." He explained, "This settlement is entirely reliant on the consumers' decision to file a claim. . . . It's up to the consumer whether they want to let Ford keep their money. . . . They created a defective transmission and I wanted to help people get their money back." Ford lawyers have worked with class-action attorneys to resolve the case, which was filed in 2012. "Ford believes the settlement is fair and reasonable, and we anticipate it will be approved by the court following the hearing next month," Ford spokesman T.R. Reid said late Friday, January 24. The proposed agreement in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California improves on an earlier version that an appeals court declined to accept in September. Improvements include: A guaranteed commitment from Ford of $30 million in cash reimbursement to consumers who have a record of multiple failed transmission repairs within five years of buying their cars or 60,000 miles An easier process for former owners and people who leased the cars to get compensated Simplifying a buyback program for defective vehicles Entry-level Fiesta and Focus vehicles, built over the last decade, have a history of costly repairs for failing transmissions and other problems. A Detroit Free Press investigation, "Out of Gear," revealed in July for the first time internal Ford documents and emails showing the company knew the transmissions were defective from the start but continued building and selling them anyway. The lawsuit alleged Ford lied to unload cars with faulty transmissions on unsuspecting buyers and then blamed the drivers for problems they experienced. Ford customers claimed in legal filings their 2012-16 Focus and 2011-16 Fiesta compact cars were built with transmissions prone to "shuddering, slipping, bucking, jerking, hesitation while changing gears, premature internal wear, delays in downshifting and, in some cases, sudden or delayed acceleration." $47M in buybacks already For the first time, Ford revealed on January 24 the dollar amount the company has already spent repurchasing defective Focus and Fiesta vehicles through its voluntary arbitration program conducted during the legal appeal. G. Keith Barron, reacquired program vehicle manager at Ford, said in a court document that between October 2017 and the end of 2019, Ford bought back 2,666 vehicles for approximately $47,477,327. Hoping for money Carrie Armstrong, 42, of Hendersonville, Tennessee, said in July she had taken her 2015 Ford Focus for repair 10 times. "When I am on the interstate and almost get hit by a diesel truck just because my car will not accelerate and get into gear?" she said. "I put my life in danger every day I get behind the wheel of this car just to go to work." Armstrong's repeated repairs are not uncommon: Ford's internal 2016 DPS6 update, marked "SECRET" on each page, noted that 350,000 of the cars "have already reached 3+ repairs in US." She said Friday, January 24, she "had no choice" but to give up on Ford after the 11th repair and trade the vehicle on Dec. 13 for a 2018 Honda Civic. She said she hopes to recover some of her loss. "The car had been fixed five times before 60,000 miles. The first time was two months after it was purchased and I was the only owner of the vehicle," Armstrong said. "The transmission had gotten worse. . . . And (they) looked at it two times with them saying there was no need to replace the part. "I will never get a Ford vehicle again." Eight is enough Elaine and Hershel Cecil went to Bradley Ford Lincoln in Lake Havasu City, Arizona, on Janiary 24. Their 2013 Focus was in the shop for its eighth repair. The longtime Ford customers said they purchased a Ford to support a company that never took government bailout money. But their loyalty has fizzled. "We thought we'd be supportive. But after the last repair, the car didn't even go half a block without clutch problems. We don't trust it'll get us home anymore. They just tell us to keep driving and the car will learn to adapt. We finally took it back to the Ford dealer and left it. They had to replace the clutch again," said Hershel Cecil, 75, a retired general contractor. "The local Ford dealer has been great. ... It's all about Ford's product and the company itself." Hard fought Lawyers on both sides met with a mediator in Boston on Dec. 9. With the latest agreement, Ford is faced with a minimum cash payment of $30 million. Any unused balance would be divided up among the people who already filed for damages. In the earlier agreement, Ford's payout was estimated at $35 million, with no minimum required payout. The appeals court said the calculation was based on total payments to every eligible vehicle owner, while the actual claims rate was expected to be much lower. That would have resulted in a smaller payment by Ford. The earlier agreement required car owners to give the company a final chance to repair vehicles before going to arbitration. That prerequisite is eliminated with the new settlement. The deal also extends the statute of limitations for financial recovery -- to either six years after delivery of the vehicle to the first purchaser or six months after the court grants final approval of the agreement. U.S. District Judge Andre Birotte Jr., is scheduled to hear the case Feb. 28 for final approval. Why now Settlements control the risk for vulnerable companies and prevent thousands of individual lawsuits, which can be much morecostly. The U.S. Court of Appeals questioned the earlier settlement brokered between Ford and Capstone Law as unfair to consumers and overly generous to the lawyers. The judges sent back for further analysis the earlier agreement after Michael Kirkpatrick of Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group, challenged how much money would be awarded to consumers and the fact that the vast majority of the car owners would have received nothing. The 2-1 appeals court decision also suggestedthe class-action lawyers didn't sufficiently represent consumers but rather pushed through the settlement based on their own financial interests. The agreement called for them to get nearly $9 million in fees. Capstone lawyers would receive the same amount under the new deal. Zohdy pointed out Friday that his team has worked on the case for eight years and the fees are comparable to other cases. Fees are separately negotiated and paid by Ford, not consumers, he said. Ford shareholders warned Ford warned its shareholders in April of legal exposure related to the DPS6 transmission in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing under the subhead, "Consumer Matters." Ryan Wu, lead counsel of Capstone, argued in early 2019 that without a settlement, Ford faced a potential $4 billion liability. Ford repairs Ford has tried, repeatedly, to repair the vehicles. In 2014, it extended the warranties on transmission-related parts to seven years and 100,000 miles on Focuses and Fiestas built before mid-2013. A month after Free Press publication of "Out of Gear," the automaker extended the warranty for 2014-16 Focuses and 2014-15 Fiestas built after that. Federal safety regulators have reviewed the transmission troubles -- once in 2014 and again in 2019, and found no "unreasonable" safety risk, the legal standard that triggers a recall. The agency received at least 4,377 consumer complaints about the cars that include reports of 50 injuries, a 2019 Free Press analysis found. Who gets money? The mediation agreement says Ford will issue cash payments for: Car owners with three or more service visits for transmission hardware replacements Car owners with three or more software updates Car owners who did not have a documented service visit and were turned away by a Ford dealer after complaining about a transmission problem. This part provides $20 to those owners -- if they submit a form under penalty of perjury. Relief Zohdy, speaking late Friday, sounded relieved to be near a resolution in the long-running case he filed so many years ago after riding in his friend's "lurching" and "jerking" Ford Fiesta through Beverly Hills, California. "Ford is a historic company. My first vehicle was a Mustang. I love Ford vehicles," he said. "They made a mistake here and I'm happy that they're doing something to correct their mistake." [GN] GERON CORP: Rosen Law Announces Filing of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Geron Corporation (NASDAQ: GERN) between March 19, 2018 and September 26, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Geron investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Geron class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1310.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants' statements throughout the Class Period: (1) misled investors about the results of a clinical drug study of imetelstat called IMbark; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about Geron's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 23, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1310.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Website: www.rosenlegal.com Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] GERON CORP: Schall Law Alerts Investors to Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Geron Corporation (NASDAQ: GERN) 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 March 19, 2018 and September 26, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before March 23, 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. Geron misled investors and the public about the results of a clinical drug study of imetelstat called IMbark. Based on this fact, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about Geron, 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. [GN] GILEAD SCIENCES: Faces KPH Antitrust Suit Over cART Regimen Drugs ----------------------------------------------------------------- KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., GILEAD HOLDINGS, LLC, GILEAD SCIENCES, LLC, GILEAD SCIENCES IRELAND UC, BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, E.R. SQUIBB & SONS, LLC, JAPAN TOBACCO, INC., JANSSEN R&D IRELAND, and JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00880 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 5, 2020), seeks redress for the overcharge damages related to cART regimen drugs sustained by the Plaintiff and others as a result of the Defendants' violations of the Sherman Act. Combination antiretroviral therapy ("cART") regimen drugs are commonly used to treat patients with human immunodeficiency virus ("HIV"). HIV can result in Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome ("AIDS") and death. Gilead has acquired and maintained a monopoly in the market for cART regimen drugs. Gilead and its coconspirators conspired to extend patent protection for their drugs, delay entry of generic competition, and charge supracompetitive prices for cART regimen drugs, the Plaintiff alleges. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class of direct purchasers that purchased combination antiretroviral therapy regimen drugs during the period from May 14, 2015, until the alleged anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' conduct cease. The Defendants' anticompetitive scheme involved engaging in unlawful contracts, combinations, and restraints of trade in the market for cART regimen drugs and unlawful monopolization, in violation of the Sherman Act, the Plaintiff contends. As a result of the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, the Plaintiff alleges it and Members of a putative Direct Purchaser Class paid more for cART regimen drugs than they otherwise would have paid in the absence of the Defendants' unlawful conduct and sustained damages in the form of overcharges for their cART regimen drugs requirements. KPH operates retail and online pharmacies in the Northeast under the name Kinney Drugs, Inc. KPH is the assignee of McKesson Corporation, who directly purchased cART drugs from the Defendants during the Class Period. Gilead has long been the dominant manufacturer of Tenofovir. Tenofovir is one of the principal NRTIs used in cART regimens and was discovered more than 30 years ago by researchers in the Czech Republic.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq. Patrick B. Clayton, Esq. SCARPULLA LAW FIRM 456 Montgomery St., 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 788-7210 Facsimile: (415) 788-0706 Email: fos@scarpullalaw.com pbc@scarpullalaw.com - and - Michael L. Roberts, Esq. Debra G. Josephson, Esq. Karen S. Halbert, Esq. Stephanie E. Smith, Esq. Sarah E. DeLoach, Esq. William R. Olson, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A. 20 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 Phone: (501) 821-5575 Facsimile: (501) 821-4474 Email: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us debrajosephson@robertslawfirm.us stephaniesmith@robertslawfirm.us sarahdeloach@robertslawfirm.us williamolson@robertslawfirm.us - and - Dianne M. Nast, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 1910 Phone: (215) 923-9300 Facsimile: (215) 923-9302 Email: dnast@nastlaw.com GOOGLE INC: 9 States Oppose $13-Mil. Street View Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Malathi Nayak, writing for Arkansas Democrat Gazette, reports that attorneys general from nine states, including Arkansas, urged a federal judge to toss out Google's $13 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit blaming its Street View mapping technology for a widespread violation of consumer privacy. The proposed accord in a debacle that became known as "Wi-Spy" doesn't offer compensation for millions of people whose confidential data was captured off their Wi-Fi networks by Street View vehicles. Instead, the deal divvies up funds among a handful of privacy rights organizations, a small number of individual consumers who led the case and their lawyers, the state officials said in a court filing. The lawsuit, filed a decade ago, was once called the biggest U.S. wiretap case ever and threatened the internet giant with billions of dollars in damages. The settlement was reached in July and won preliminary approval in October from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco, who found it to be "likely fair, reasonable, and adequate." "Without receiving any of the $13 million cash fund or any meaningful injunctive relief, class members receive no direct benefit from the settlement," the attorneys general said. An attorney for the consumers and Google's press office didn't immediately respond to messages seeking comment. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, Esq., submitted the filing, joined by Alabama, Alaska, Missouri, Ohio, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana and Louisiana. The states plan to urge Breyer to reject the deal at a Feb. 28 final approval hearing in San Francisco. Google agreed in the settlement to delete all collected data and educate people on how to set up encrypted wireless networks. But the company had already made those promises in a 2013 agreement with 39 attorneys general, according to Brnovich's filing. Any "injunctive relief is illusory," the attorneys general said. The Street View suit is a rare instance in privacy litigation where consumers gained the upper hand, notably when the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco in 2013 rejected Google's argument that it was legal to intercept open Wi-Fi networks because they were akin to AM/FM radio transmissions. The court's conclusion that the federal Wiretap Act applied meant that if Google went to trial to fight the allegations and lost, it could be hit with $10,000 in damages for every violation. But in July, the plaintiffs' lawyers said the settlement was justified, in part, because there was a risk that they could still lose the case -- and end up with nothing. They also argued that the accord would deter privacy violations and that the funds designated for privacy-oriented groups will help teach future information technology workers "to become safeguards of internet privacy rather than exploiters of personal information communicated over the internet." [GN] GREEN DOT: Brodsky & Smith Reminds of Feb. 18 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ Brodsky & Smith, LLC reminds investors of important approaching deadlines regarding class action lawsuits against the following companies for violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased any of the below-listed stocks during the referenced time periods and want to discuss your legal rights, please contact Marc Ackerman, Esquire or Jordan Schatz, Esquire at 877-534-2590. There is no cost or financial obligation to you. GREEN DOT CORPORATION (GDOT) Shares purchased between May 8, 2018 and November 7, 2019 Deadline: February 18, 2020 According to the complaint, defendants throughout the Class Period made 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. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Additional information can be found at http://www.brodskysmith.com/cases/green-dot-corporation-nyse-gdot/ or call 877-534-2590. No cost or obligation to you. EXELON CORORATION (EXC) Shares purchased between February 9, 2019 and November 1, 2019 Deadline: February 14, 2020 According to the complaint,throughout the Class Period, the 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) as a result, Exelon's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Additional information can be found at http://www.brodskysmith.com/cases/exelon-corporation-nasdaq-exc/, or call 877-534-2590. No cost or obligation to you. MERIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. (MMSI) Shares purchased between February 26, 2019 and October 30, 2019 Deadline: February 3, 2020 According to the complaint, 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. Additional information can be found at http://www.brodskysmith.com/?post_type=cases&p=13407&preview=true, or call 877-534-2590. No cost or obligation to you. 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. [GN] H AND K: Griffiths Sues for Denial of Refund for Defective Product ------------------------------------------------------------------ Charles Griffiths, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. H and K Furniture, Inc. and Huffman Koos Holdings, Inc., Defendants, Case No. ESX-L-000201-20, (N.J. Sup., January 9, 2020), seeks monetary and injunctive relief and treble damages for violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Defendants own a furniture store under the name "Huffman Koos." On November 16, 2019, Griffith ordered a Huffman Koos furniture that was delivered in a damaged condition. His requests for refund and/or repair was ignored, asserts the complaint.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq. DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. Greentree Centre 525 Route 73 North, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ 08053 Tel: (856) 797-9951 HI-TECH PAINTLESS: Dobrov Hits Misclassification, Seeks OT Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- Taras Dobrov, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Hi-Tech Paintless Dent Repair, Inc. and Mark Tsurkis, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00314 (N.D. Ill., January 15, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Hi-Tech operates a repair facility located at 1030 S. Milwaukee Ave., Wheeling, where Dobrov was employed by Defendants as a repair technician from approximately January 2012 until December 2018. Hi-tech classifies its repair technicians as independent contractors, thus failing to pay them overtime compensation, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Teresa M. Becvar, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com tbecvar@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com - and - Oleg N. Feldman, Esq. LEXERN LAW GROUP, LTD. 100 South Saunders St., Suite 150 Lake Forest, IL 60045 Tel: (847) 777-6838 Fax: (847) 574-8008 Email: oleg@lexern.com HOUSTON ASTROS: Dodger Fan, Friends Want to File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Spillman, writing for KTLA5 News, reports that one of the many Los Angeles Dodgers fans outraged by the Houston Astros' actions in the 2017 season, which ended in a World Series loss for the L.A. team, said he and his friends were considering filing a class-action lawsuit. MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred suspended Astros manager AJ Hinch and general manager Jeff Luhnow on Jan. 13 before the team fired them over violation of rules against the use of video equipment to steal signs during matches. "We're looking for an attorney," said Jose "Bluebeard" Lara of Montebello on Tuesday, citing losses that include money paid for parking, Dodger dogs and beer. "It's not cheap to go to a Dodger game anymore," he added. Lara said he's received numerous inquiries from fellow fans who want to join the lawsuit. The Dodgers have not commented on the league officials' decision, saying MLB asked them and other teams to refrain from publicly addressing the issue. Eric Spillman reports from Whittier for the KTLA 5 Morning News on Jan. 14, 2020. [GN] IFINEX INC: Race to Lead 3 Suits Over 2017 BTC Bull Run Is On ------------------------------------------------------------- Kollen Post, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that one legal team looks to lead the three ongoing suits against IFinex alleging that illegal conduct involving iFinex's subsidiaries Tether and Bitfinex was behind Bitcoin's (BTC) 2017 bull run. Per a Jan. 13 filing with the court of the Southern District of New York (SDNY), the counsel for Eric Young, Adam Kurtz and David Crystal are asking to be deemed "Interim Lead Counsel" for a number of parties filing similar class-action suits. Young et al are represented by law firms Radice and Kirby McInerney. Meaning of the new classification for the case Such a classification would make Young's counsel the flagship of a trio of class-action suits against iFinex that also includes Leibowitz et al v. iFinex -- originally filed in October -- and Laubus et al v. iFinex. It would, moreover, put them at the head of a more general "class" of those similarly situated as having lost money due to iFinex's alleged market manipulation, which is a potentially massive group of Bitcoin investors. As Young's legal team argues, their case "Contains expert analyses and original statistical analyses that are not found in the Leibowitz Complaint. Further, Kirby and Radice possess extensive, specialized experience representing parties in data-intensive financial, commodities, and antitrust class actions." Who will lead the class? Karen Lerner, Esq. -- klerner@kmllp.com -- a partner at Kirby McInerney spearheading the case, told Cointelegraph that "Interim class counsel will be responsible for protecting the interests of the class at this stage. That can include representing the class through motions, conducting discovery, and eventually moving for class certification." Lerner reiterated the assertion in the recent filings that Kirby McInterney's experience both in this general area of law and particularly in assembling expert analysis for the allegations were working in favor of their spearheading the class action. Shifting jurisdictions and the history of the accusations As Cointelegraph reported, Young et al refiled their case from Washington State to SDNY, only to be followed the next day by Laubus' case, which copied much of the language from Young's complaint. IFinex, for its part, has responded to the allegations with strong language. Upon Young's initially filing in Washington in November, subsidiaries Bitfinex and Tether dubbed the accusations "mercenary and baseless" in simultaneously published posts on their respective websites. Suspicion as to Tether's role in manipulating the bull market for BTC in 2017 date back to research originally published in June 2018. [GN] INNOPHOS HOLDINGS: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC on Jan. 13 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:20-cv-00039-UNA, on behalf of public common shareholders of Innophos Holdings, Inc., ("Innophos" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:IPHS)who held Innophos securities as of the record date on November 25, 2019 (the "Class Period"), and have been harmed by Innophos' and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the sale of the Company to Iris Parent LLC ("Iris"). Under the terms of the sale, each share of Innophos common stock will be converted into the right to receive $32.00 in cash per share of Innophos common stock owned. The complaint alleges that the Merger Consideration is inadequate and that the Definitive Proxy Statement provided shareholders with materially incomplete and misleading information with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In particular, the complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement contained materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections for Innophos; and (ii) the valuation analyses performed by Innophos' financial advisor Lazard Frères & Co. LLC, in support of their fairness opinion. The special meeting of Innophos stockholders to vote on the Merger is held January 15th, 2020. Mr. Juan Monteverde is available to personally discuss this case with you and if you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 16, 2020. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/innophos-holdings-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019 an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2019 Top Rated Lawyer. CONTACT: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] INTERNATIONAL CONCRETE: Sanchez Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- JOVANY SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. IINTERNATIONAL CONCRETE CORP d/b/a INTERNATIONAL CONCRETE, TEAM ONE NYC INC d/b/a INTERNATIONAL CONCRETE, and SAM GLUCK, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00673 (E.D.N.Y., February 6, 2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought against Defendants to recover unpaid wages, including overtime compensation due to time shaving, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Sanchez is a resident of Bronx County, New York and was hired by Defendants in or around April 2019 to work as welder. Plaintiff alleges that, throughout his employment with Defendants, Defendants willfully failed to compensate Plaintiff for approximately 1.5 hours of overtime each week due to Defendants' unlawful time-shaving practices. Defendants operate a construction business under the trade name, "INTERNATIONAL CONCRETE." Sam Gluck is an owner and/or Chief Executive Officer of Int'l Concrete Corp and Team One NYC Inc., and possesses and exercises the power and authority to fire and hire, determine rate and method of pay, determine work schedules, and otherwise affect the quality of employment of Plaintiff and other similarly situated construction workers of Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com JAKARTA: Hundreds of Flood Survivors File Complaints ---------------------------------------------------- The Jakarta Post reports that hundreds of flood survivors have filed complaints through centers set up by local movements amid efforts to prepare a class action lawsuit against the government and regional administrations to push for compensation and better prevention measures following the severe flooding that impacted thousands of people in Greater Jakarta. Public lawyers grouped under the 2020 Jakarta Flood Victims Advocacy Team, Jakarta Legal Aid Foundation (LBH) and 2020 Bekasi Flood Victims Advocacy Team each set up their own complaint centers on Jan. 6 for flood victims to lodge their complaints. [GN] JBS USA: Thornton Class Suit Removed to District of New Mexico -------------------------------------------------------------- JBS USA Food Company removed the case captioned as ROBIN G. THORNTON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. TYSON FOODS, INC., CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS, CORP., JBS USA FOOD COMPANY, NATIONAL BEEF PACKING COMPANY, Case No. D-202-CV-2020-00109 (Filed Jan. 7, 2020), from the New Mexico District Court, Second Judicial District, County of Bernalillo, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on Feb. 5, 2020. The District of New Mexico Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00105-JHR-SMV to the proceeding. The complaint asserts claims relating to the cattle and beef markets, focusing in particular on the labeling of beef products. The Plaintiff alleges that imported live cattle and beef are deceptively labeled and marketed. JBS USA is a leading processor of beef, pork and prepared foods in the U.S. and Canada. Tyson Foods, Inc. is an American multinational corporation based in Springdale, Arkansas, that operates in the food industry. Tyson Foods is the world's second largest processor and marketer of chicken, beef, and pork after JBS.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: A. Blair Dunn, Esq. WESTERN AGRICULTURE, RESOURCE AND BUSINESS ADVOCATES, LLP 400 Gold Ave. SW, Suite 1000 Albuquerque, NM 87102 E-mail: abdunn@ablairdunn-esq.com Defendant JBS USA Food Company is represented by: Andrew G. Schultz, Esq. RODEY, DICKASON, SLOAN, AKIN & ROBB, P.A. P.O. Box 1888 Albuquerque, NM 87103 Telephone: (505) 765-5900 Facsimile: (505) 768-7395 E-mail: aschultz@rodey.com JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Bailey Sues over FDCPA Violations ---------------------------------------------------- LATASHA BAILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00708-JDW (E.D. Pa., February 7, 2020) seeks to pursue claims against the Defendants under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant deceived the Plaintiff and others similarly situated consumers in Pennsylvania by omitting the actual requirements on its debt collection letter that a consumer must dispute in writing, which violated the provision under the FDCPA. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC is a Minnesota-based debt collection company, which do business in Pennsylvania through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Antranig Garibian, Esq. GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES PC 1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 326-9179 E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: $6.3M Deal Over Infants' Tylenol Packaging ------------------------------------------------------------- WRDW.com reports that a $6.3 million settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit regarding the packaging on Infants' Tylenol. According to the website for the class action settlement, you're included in the settlement if you bought the product for personal or household use between October 4, 2014, and January 6, 2020. The lawsuit stems from claims the medicine's packaging was deceptive and made consumers believe the Infant Tylenol was specially formulated for infants, when the bottle contains liquid acetaminophen in the same concentration as Children's Tylenol, causing customers to overpay for Infant's Tylenol. Johnson & Johnson denies the allegations and says the safety features of Infant's Tylenol, including the syringe enclosed for safe dosing of very young children, means Infants' and Children's are different products. A $6.315 million fund has been set up; once court fees and administrative costs are deducted, the rest will be used to pay class member claims. Class members may claim $2.15 for every 1 and 2 fl. oz. bottle of Infants' Tylenol purchased. A maximum of seven bottles or $15.05 may be claimed without proof of purchase. An unlimited number of bottles may be claimed with proof of purchase for all Infants' Tylenol purchases. If you're interested in joining, you must submit your claim form by April 13, 2020. [GN] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: April 13 Tylenol Claims Filing Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------------- WSET reports that one may be eligible to claim part of a $6.3 million settlement if one has bought Infants' Tylenol in the past five years. According to a press release from KCC Class Action Services LLC, Tylenol's parent company Johnson & Johnson has agreed to pay $6.3 million as part of a class action settlement. The settlement was reached in a class-action lawsuit about the packaging and advertising of Infants' Tylenol. According to the release, plaintiffs in the lawsuit claim that the packaging tricks people into believing that Infants' Tylenol is specially formulated for infants, when in fact it's the same product as Children's Tylenol. They say this causes consumers to overpay for Infants' Tylenol. The lawsuit says if you bought the product at any time from Oct. 3, 2014, to Jan. 6, 2020, you can claim part of the money. Officials say consumers can get back $2.15 for every 1 and 2 fl. oz. bottle of Infants' Tylenol purchased. Also, a maximum of seven bottles or $15.05 may be claimed without proof of purchase. For more details on the settlement, go here: http://www.infantstylenolsettlement.com/ To file a claim, go here: https://kccsecure.com/infantstylenolsettlement/Claimant/UnknownClaimForm In order to get money back, you have to file a claim by April 13, 2020. [GN] JOLLY FARMS: Faces Trujillo TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Texts ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Trujillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOLLY FARMS, INC., a California non-profit corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00275-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal., Feb. 5, 2020), seeks to stop the Defendants from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making unsolicited, prerecorded and autodialed text messages to consumers, including text messages to consumers, who asked that the messages stop and who have registered their cell phone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. Part of the Defendant's marketing plan includes sending text messages en masse to consumers regarding promotions and other incentives that are meant to encourage consumers to place orders from Jolly Farms. Such text messages are sent using an autodialer without the necessary express written consent. The Plaintiff received a number of unsolicited, autodialed text messages to his cell phone, despite having his phone number registered on the DNC and opting out from receiving more autodialed text messages, according to the complaint. In response to this text message, the Plaintiff files this class action lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, requiring the Defendant to cease sending unsolicited, autodialed text messages to consumers' cellular telephone numbers, including text messages to phone numbers registered on the DNC, as well as an award of statutory damages to the members of the Class. Mr. Trujillo is a resident of Apple Valley, San Bernardino, California. Jolly Farms runs a marijuana delivery service throughout parts of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda F. Benedict, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF AMANDA F. BENEDICT 7710 Hazard Center Dr., Ste. E-104 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (760) 822-1911 Fax: (760) 452-7560 Email: amanda@amandabenedict.com LANDS' END: Faces Second Class Action Over Delta Air Uniforms ------------------------------------------------------------- Kristen Leigh Painter, writing for Star Tribune, reports that skin rashes, difficulty breathing, blurry vision and hair loss are some of the issues thousands of Delta Air Lines flight attendants have reportedly dealt with since the company switched their uniforms nearly two years ago. At first, many of the workers quietly coped -- seeing doctors, visiting urgent care during their layovers and wearing a protective base layer between their skin and the uniforms. But as symptoms worsened, many say they couldn't perform their jobs. Eventually, the workers started talking to one another about their personal health problems and noticed striking similarities. A year after the new uniform line launched, Delta workers filed the first class action lawsuit in a New York district court against the clothing manufacturer, Lands' End of Dodgeville, Wis. Then, two weeks ago on New Year's Eve, the second class action lawsuit was filed by 536 Delta workers, including dozens from Minnesota, who provided details about the adverse health conditions they've experienced since donning Delta's new threads. The vast majority of the plaintiffs are flight attendants, but several gate agents, cargo workers and Sky Club employees also have joined the suit. As of November 2019, about 3,000 flight attendants have formally reported adverse health effects attributed to the uniforms, Delta said. The issue is a hot one that intersects a unionization effort of Delta flight attendants and is drawing comparisons to nearly identical situations recently experienced at American and Alaska Airlines. It also highlights a relatively new field of medicine for lower-exposure hazards in the workplace that are increasingly difficult to pinpoint and trace as the global clothing supply chain expands farther from home. Much fanfare In May 2018, Atlanta-based Delta threw glitzy runway shows at several of its largest hubs, including Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, to promote the launch of its new uniforms. The garments, imagined by celebrity designer Zac Posen and manufactured by Lands' End, were to be worn by about 64,000 of its employees, from flight attendants to ramp workers. "The uniforms at issue here have been in use for nearly two years, have been extensively tested multiple times by independent laboratories and have been found both safe and fit for their purpose," Lands' End said in a statement. "Because this matter is in litigation, we regret that we cannot comment further." A few years before Delta introduced new uniforms, American and Alaska had rolled out new uniforms by manufacturer Twin Hill that thousands of flight attendants alleged caused a number of illnesses, from severe hives to respiratory problems. After lengthy battles with both companies, workers at both American and Alaska will soon be wearing new uniforms again that they hope don't cause the same reactions. Delta's workers saw what happened at those airlines and assumed their rollout would go smoother, believing Delta was the best U.S. airline. However one flight attendant -- one of several who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation -- said about a year ago she started developing severe hives during work trips. She later started experiencing heart palpitations and hair loss, which, she said, "looks like male patterned baldness." That's when the flight attendant, in her 30s, knew she had to get out of the uniforms. At first, she said, the company made it extremely difficult to win approval to wear an alternative uniform. "It was really convoluted and unfair in how they were applying these rules. At first they approved me for an alternative uniform, then they retracted that," the flight attendant said. "Now that this has happened, the trust between the company and the flight attendants is completely destroyed." Some colleagues were approved with just a doctor's note, while others were told they would need to have an independent medical review by one of Delta's approved doctors. Some had to undergo a "patch test" where clothing materials are applied to the skin and if a reaction did not immediately occur, the workers were denied alternative uniforms. Others slogged through workers' compensation claims, many of which were also denied. On Nov. 12, Delta executives sent a memo to its flight attendants and airport customer service agents with results of a toxicology study commissioned by the airline. The memo concluded "the toxicology study confirms that the uniforms are not the cause of skin and respiratory health reactions" and maintained the need for those with symptoms to continue jumping through medical hoops. On Nov. 25, the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA) -- the union trying to organize Delta's flight attendant labor group -- announced it was commissioning its own toxicology study on the uniforms. The next day, Delta informed its employees wearing alternative uniforms that they were extending approvals to wear their alternatives, called "black and whites," for another year. Delta said it decided to simplify the process based on employee feedback. "We haven't made any conclusions [on the root cause] and we are trying to get to the bottom of the situation," said Delta spokeswoman Gina Laughlin. Since August, the number of flight attendants approved to wear the alternatives has increased from "a few hundred" to about 1,000, and the airline dropped its additional medical exam requirements in late November, Laughlin said. Complex supply chain Before Alaska flight attendants started reporting adverse health effects in 2011, the union had never seen anything like this before, said Sara Nelson, president of AFA International. In the past few decades, the clothing supply chain has become far less centralized, she said. In 1991, 56% of the clothing sold in the United States was made domestically, compared with just 3% in 2018, according to data from the American Apparel & Footwear Association. The fact that a fabric or product is made overseas though, the AAFA said, does not make it unsafe. Instead, says Judith Anderson, AFA's industrial hygienist, this longer supply chain can just make it harder to control. She said fabrics might be sourced in one country and assembled in another before being shipped to the United States. Chemicals with specific purposes could be added anywhere along the way. For workers who travel for a living, it makes sense that attributes like antimicrobial, stain- and wrinkle-resistance would be desired, Anderson said. The problem, she believes, is that chemical compounds added to the fabrics to elicit those attributes are interacting in a negative way, causing these health issues. The challenge for individuals experiencing these lower-level exposures at work is identifying the chemical culprit. Zeke McKinney, a Twin Cities-based doctor at HealthPartners specializing in occupational medicine, has seen around 50 Delta flight attendants with conditions possibly linked to the uniforms, ranging from rashes to vocal cord impairment to flu-like symptoms. Whereas medical toxicologists treat patients with immediate and life-threatening poisons, he focuses more on environmental toxicology, which studies people exposed to toxins over time. McKinney read the full toxicology report from Seattle-based Intertox, the firm Delta hired to study the uniforms. "I think it was a thorough study, but not perfect. To say you've tested for every possible thing is just not possible," he said. "We make hundreds of thousands of chemicals every day and we have data on a very small percentage on it. The medical literature is not comprehensive. There are a lot of aspects of our immune systems we as doctors don't yet fully understand." According to the class action suit, none of the more than 500 plaintiffs experienced any adverse health effects wearing the old uniforms. [GN] LB METALS: Brown Suit Over BIPA Violation Moved to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled Torrion Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LB METALS, LLC, Case No. 2019-CH-12577, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 6, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00874 to the proceeding. The complaint is filed alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the Plaintiff, LB Metals captured and collected the Plaintiff's biometric information or identifiers without obtaining a written executed release and without making required disclosures concerning the collection, storage, use or destruction of biometric identifiers or information. Additionally, the Plaintiff alleges that LB Metals "improperly disclosed employees' biometric data to third party vendors in violation of BIPA."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com plesko@pwcklegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. Thomas E. Ahlering, Esq. Alexandra S. Oxyer, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 233 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-460-5000 Facsimile: 312-460-7000 Email: gmaatman@seyfarth.com tahlering@seyfarth.com LEHIGH UNIVERSITY: Class Action Seeks $54M in Punitive Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- Jordan Wolman, writing for The Brown and White, reports that a class action lawsuit against Lehigh University, Bethlehem Area School District and the Community Voices Clinic is seeking $54 million in punitive damages. The lawsuit, filed Jan. 17 in federal court, is alleging the university violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Darcy Lynn Scheyer, a graduate student at Lehigh, is representing a class of at least 700 individuals who possess a recorded disability and interacted with the university. Scheyer did not respond to a request for comment. Lori Friedman, Lehigh's media relations director, did not have a comment at the time of publication and BASD Superintendent Joseph Roy was not available for comment. Arpana Inman, the clinic director for the Community Voices Clinic and an employee of Lehigh's College of Education, was named in the suit. The Community Voices Clinic is a mental health program available in some Bethlehem schools through a partnership between Lehigh, BASD and St. Luke's Health Network. The lawsuit stems from allegations that Scheyer, a graduate student pursuing a degree in Lehigh's College of Education, was denied reasonable accommodations as a disabled student and was retaliated against. She alleges that the university instructed Muhlenberg College in October 2019 to remove Scheyer from her internship at the college for the 2019-2020 school year as part of her degree in counseling and human services. Scheyer said no justification was given for her removal. She claims the university and BASD failed to make reasonable accommodations for her disability, which was not specified in the lawsuit. Scheyer, who was a graduate trainee in BASD's Community Voices Clinic, alleges in the lawsuit that the program provided false and inaccurate information on evaluation forms. Various types of mandated supervision throughout her training programs were also not provided by the university, the lawsuit states. Scheyer alleges that confidential, private information was shared among the university, the clinic and BASD. Scheyer's attorney is demanding a trial by jury. The plaintiff was awarded a "right to sue" notice by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Nov. 8, 2019. Lehigh was notified of this notice at approximately that time. [GN] LEXINGTON HEALTH: Villeneuve Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometrics ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sylvia Villeneuve, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEXINGTON HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS OF LOMBARD, INC., Case No. 2020L000153 (Ill. Cir., DuPage Cty., Feb. 5, 2020), arises from the illegal actions of the Defendant in collecting, storing and using the Plaintiff's and other individuals' 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. According to the complaint, in violation 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, who are being required to "clock in" with their fingerprints. If the Defendant's database 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. The Plaintiff brings this action to prevent the Defendant from further violating the privacy rights of Illinois residents and to recover statutory damages for the Defendant's unauthorized collection, storage and use of these individuals' biometrics in violation of BIPA. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the State of Illinois. Lexington Health Care Systems of Lombard, Inc. is an Illinois corporation doing business in DuPage County, 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 - and - Peter S. Lubin, Esq. Patrick D. Austermuehle, Esq. LUBIN AUSTERMUEHLE, P.C. 360 West Butterfield Road, Suite 325 Elmhurst, IL 60126 Phone: (630) 333-0333 Email: peter@l-a.la w patrick@l-a.law MATCH GROUP: Faces Glynn TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Text Ads ------------------------------------------------------------ Stephanie Glynn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MATCH GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00269-KJM-DMC (E.D. Cal., Feb. 5, 2020), arises from the Defendant's illegal actions in sending automated text messages advertisements to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and numerous other individuals across the country, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. All of the subject text messages received by the Plaintiff were transmitted by or on behalf of the Defendant without her requisite prior "express written consent," the Plaintiff contends. Because her cellular phone alerts her whenever she receives a text message, each unsolicited text message transmitted to her Number invaded her privacy and intruded upon her seclusion upon receipt, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Anderson, California. Match Group, LLC, is the owner and operator of the "Tinder" location-based social search mobile app and Web application, which is most often used as a dating service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: + 1 (415) 766-3534 Facsimile: + 1 (415) 402-0058 Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com - and - L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com MATTEL INC: Bronstein Reminds Investors of Feb. 24 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Mattel, Inc. ("Mattel" or the Company") (NASDAQ: MAT) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Mattel securities between October 26, 2017 and August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/mat. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Mattel had inadequate systems of internal disclosure and financial controls; (2) Mattel would need to amend its 2018 annual report on Form 10-K to restate the Company's financial results for the third and fourth quarters of 2017; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about its business and operations 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/mat 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 Mattel you have until February 24, 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. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] MATTEL INC: RM Law Woos Investors to Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- RM LAW, P.C. announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Mattel, Inc. ("Mattel" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MAT) securities during the period from October 26, 2017 through August 8, 2019 (the "Class Period"). Mattel shareholders may, no later than February 24, 2020, move the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If you purchased shares of Mattel and would like to learn more about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign up online, click here. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) Mattel had inadequate systems of internal disclosure and financial controls; (2) Mattel would need to amend its 2018 annual report on Form 10-K to restate the Company's financial results for the third and fourth quarters of 2017; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about its business and operations were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result of defendants' alleged false and misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. According to the Complaint, on August 1, 2019, Mattel announced that it would offer $250 million of Senior Notes due 2027 (the "Note Offering"). The Company said that it would use the net proceeds from the sale of the Notes, plus cash on hand, to redeem and retire all of its 4.350% Senior Notes which would be due in 2020 and pay related prepayment premiums and transaction fees and expenses. Then, on August 8, 2019 -- the very day the Note Offering was expected to close -- Mattel shocked investors when it announced that a whistleblower letter had been sent to the Company's outside auditors alleging accounting errors in past quarters and questioned whether Mattel's outside auditor was sufficiently independent. As a result, the Company announced that it was terminating the Senior Note Offering subject to the results of an internal investigation. On this news, shares of Mattel fell over 15%, closing at $11.31 per share on August 9, 2019, on heavy trading volume. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than February 24, 2020, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C. (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by email at rm@maniskas.com or click here. For more information about class action cases in general or to learn more about RM LAW, P.C. please visit our website by clicking here. RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm. RM LAW, P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide. Contact: Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: 484-324-6800, 844-291-9299 Email: rm@maniskas.com [GN] MERCK & CO: Faces Middleton Suit Over Sale of Defective Zostavax ---------------------------------------------------------------- LINDIA MIDDLETON AND WILLIAM MIDDLETON v. MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., Case No. 2:20-cv-00319-HB (E.D. Pa., Jan. 16, 2020), alleges that Merck failed to warn Mrs. Middleton and other consumers of the defective condition of Zostavax, which carry the risk of serious side effects, such as those suffered by her and other similarly situated patients. According to the complaint, Merck failed to exercise ordinary care in making representations concerning its product and its manufacture, sale, testing, quality assurance, quality control, and distribution in interstate commerce. Merck negligently and/or carelessly misrepresented and intentionally concealed the truth regarding the high risk of the product's unreasonable, dangerous and adverse side effects associated with the administration, use, and injection of the product. Merck breached its duty in representing to Mrs. Middleton, her physicians and healthcare providers, and the medical community that Merck's product did not carry the risk of serious side effects, the Plaintiffs contend. In June 2014, Mrs. Middleton was inoculated with the Defendants' Zostavax vaccine for routine health maintenance and for its intended purpose: the prevention of shingles. In August 2016, Mrs. Middleton was diagnosed with shingles by the attending physicians at Norton Audubon Hospital in Louisville, Kentucky. The Shingles outbreak shingles lasted several months causing severe pain and suffering, which required multiple trips to the Emergency Department. As a direct and proximate result of Merck's defective Zostavax vaccine, Mrs. Middleton's symptoms have resulted in physical limitations not present prior to using Merck's product, according to the complaint. Mrs. Middleton also experiences mental and emotional distress due to resulting physical limitations and seriousness of her condition. As a result of the manufacture, marketing, advertising, promotion, distribution and/or sale of Zostavax, Mrs. Middleton also alleges that she sustained severe and permanent personal injuries. She adds that as a tragic consequence of Merck's wrongful conduct, she suffered serious, progressive, permanent, and incurable injuries, as well as significant conscious pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment and injury. William Middleton, Mrs. Middleton's spouse, has necessarily paid and has become liable to pay for medical aid, treatment and for medications, and will necessarily incur further expenses of a similar nature in the future. Zostavax was designed, developed, marketed, and sold with the intended purpose of preventing shingles, which is caused by the varicella zoster virus (VZV). Varicella zoster is a virus that causes chickenpox. Once the varicella zoster virus causes chickenpox, the virus remains inactive (dormant) in the nervous system for many years. VZV can be reactivated due to factors such as disease, stress, aging, and immune modulation caused by vaccination. When reactivated, varicella zoster replicates in nerve cells and is carried down the nerve fibers to the area of skin served by the ganglion that harbored the dormant virus. In May 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved the Zostavax vaccine to be marketed and sold in the United States by Merck. Zostavax was initially indicated for "the prevention of herpes zoster (shingles) in individuals 60 years of age and older when administered as a single-dose." FDA approval was based in large part on the results of the Shingles Prevention Study (SPS) supported by Merck. The results of the SPS were published in the New England Journal of Medicine on June 2, 2005. The paper was titled "A Vaccine to Prevent Herpes Zoster and Postherpetic Neuralgia in Older Adults". N. Engl. J. Med. 2005; 352(22):2271-84. The Middleton case is being consolidated in the litigation titled in RE: ZOSTAVAX (ZOSTER VACCINE LIVE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY, MDL No. 2848. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Harvey Bartle, III. Merck & Co. developed, tested, designed, set specifications for, licensed, manufactured, prepared, compounded, assembled, packaged, processed, labeled, marketed, promoted, distributed, and/or sold the Zostavax vaccine to be administered to patients throughout the United States. Merck Sharp is a wholly owned subsidiary of Merck & Co.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrea L. Sapone, Esq. Annesley H. DeGaris, Esq. Harold T. McCall, Esq. DEGARIS WRIGHT MCCALL 2 North 20 Street, Suite 1030 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 509-1817 Facsimile: (205) 588-5231 E-mail: asapone@dwmlawyers.com adegaris@dwmlawyers.com hmecall@waynewright.com MITSUBISHI HEAVY: Koreans Sue 6 Japanese Firms Over Forced Labor ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ock Hyun-ju, writing for The Korea Herald, reports that victims of wartime forced labor and their descendants based in Gwangju and South Jeolla Province filed a class-action lawsuit against Japanese firms, seeking financial restitution amid soured Seoul-Tokyo relations over the colonial-era issue. Two surviving victims forced to work at Japanese steel mills during Japan's 1910-45 colonization of Korea and 31 bereaved family members of late victims participated in the suit against six Japanese firms -- Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Mitsubishi Materials Corporation, Mitsui Mining and Smelting, Nishimatsu Construction, Kawasaki Heavy Industries and the now-defunct Hokkaido Colliery Railway Company. The progressive Lawyers for a Democratic Society and a civic group advocating for Korean victims filed the suit on their behalf. "Through the lawsuit, the Japanese government and Japanese firms' illegal acts against humanity will be laid bare once again," the organizations said in a press conference on Jan. 14, adding that improving Seoul-Tokyo relations would be difficult without Japan atoning for its wartime wrongdoings. Court proceedings for the first class-action suit filed in April last year by 54 plaintiffs are being postponed as the Japanese firms have refused to accept the court documents. It is necessary for the firms to receive the documents for the court to conclude its deliberations and make a ruling. Japan-Korea relations have been strained since Korea's Supreme Court in 2018 ordered a Japanese firm to compensate four Koreans in the first such ruling on the forced labor issue. No action has been taken by Japan or the firm to address the court ruling. Korea urges Japan to respect the ruling, but Japan claims the colonial-era matter was settled by a 1965 treaty normalizing bilateral ties. Meanwhile, President Moon Jae-in on Jan. 14 called on Japan to work together to resolve the issue of compensating World War II forced labor victims, saying Korea's proposals alone are not the solution. Moon, however, said the solution should be based on what the victims can agree to and accept. [GN] MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Howard G. Smith Reminds of March 3 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming March 3, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Mohawk Industries, Inc. ("Mohwak" or the "Company") (NYSE: MHK) common stock between April 28, 2017 and July 25, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors suffering losses on their Mohawk investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. On July 25, 2018, after the market closed, the Company announced disappointing financial results for second quarter 2018, disclosing that Mohawk "reduced [its] production volumes more than [the Company] had thought" and that it "came into the year with higher inventories than [it] wanted to have." On this news, the Company's share price fell $38.06, or over 17%, to close at $179.31 per share on July 26, 2018, thereby injuring investors. Then, on October 25, 2018, after the market closed, Mohawk reported third quarter 2018 financial results that fell below the Company's guidance, stating that "[t]o improve [its] inventory turns, [Mohawk was] presently manufacturing fewer units than [it was] selling, which is negatively impacting [its] costs." On this news, the Company's share price fell $36.04, or nearly 24%, to close at $115.03 per share on October 26, 2018, thereby injuring investors further. Then, on July 25, 2019, after the market closed, Mohawk reported that sales in its Flooring NA segment declined 7% year-over-year and that there was "big buildup in inventory in ceramic." On this news, the Company's share price fell $27.52, or nearly 18%, to close at $128.84 per share on July 26, 2019, thereby injuring investors further. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company engaged in deceptive and unsustainable sales practices to mask declining customer demand for its Conventional Flooring products; (2) that Mohawk's increasing inventories was not the result of increasing inflation or the Company's backward integration, but instead the result of the Company deliberately stuffing the channels with Conventional Flooring Products to boost sales; 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. If you purchased Mohawk common stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than March 3, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200113005134/en/ Contacts Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Howard G. Smith, Esquire 215-638-4847 888-638-4847 howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN] MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Zhang Investor Announces Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Mohawk Industries, Inc. (NYSE: MHK) between April 28, 2017 and July 25, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 3, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. To join the class action, http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=mohawk-industries-inc&id=2150 or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action. http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=mohawk-industries-inc&id=2150. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants and its senior executives presented false and misleading financial statements or omitted to (1) Mohawk was engaging in fraudulent channel stuffing; (2) Mohawk's statements regarding sales growth and the demand for its conventional flooring products were false and misleading; (3) the Company falsely assured stockholders about its increasing accounts receivable and inventory levels during the Class Period by falsely attributing those increases to external factors like rising raw material costs and inflation; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about its business and operations were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class has not been certified. You may retain counsel of your choice. You may take no action at this time and be an absent class member. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff. Contact: Zhang Investor Law P.C. 99 Wall Street, Suite 232 New York, New York 10005 Email: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com tel: (800) 991-3756 [GN] MONSANTO COMPANY: Zellar Sues Over Sale of Herbicide Roundup(TM) ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN ZELLAR, JR. v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 0:19-cv-03187-SRN-HB (D. Minn., Dec. 27, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup(TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax. Monsanto Company provides agricultural products. The Company offers corn, soybean, cotton, wheat, sorghum, and vegetable seeds.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles H. Johnson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES H. JOHNSON, PA 2599 Mississippi Street New Brighton, MN 55112-5060 Telephone: (651) 633-5685 Facsimile: (651) 633-4442 E-mail: bdehkes@charleshjohnsonlaw.com MXD GROUP: Scheduling Conference in Kimbo Continued to April 27 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case JOSEPH KIMBO, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MXD GROUP, INC., a California corporation; RYDER SYSTEM, INC., a Florida Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-CV-00166-WBS-KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California continued the Scheduling Conference currently set for Feb. 18, 2020 until April 27, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5 (WBS). The scheduled Scheduling Conference will be taken off calendar upon the filing of a motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. A joint status report will be filed no later than April 13, 2020. The action will be stayed in all respects until the Scheduling Conference, or the hearing on the anticipated motion for preliminary approval, whichever is earlier. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/BBl8db from Leagle.com. Joseph Kimbo, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others similiary situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua G. Konecky -- jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP, Leslie H. Joyner -- ljoyner@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP & Nathan B. Piller -- npiller@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP. MXD Group, Inc., a California corporation & RYDER System, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Defendants, represented by Brittany M. Hernandez, Reed Smith LLP & Mara D. Curtis, Reed Smith LLP. NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Maurice Blackburn to Launch Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Ben Butler, writing for The Guardian, reports that law firm Maurice Blackburn will launch a class action lawsuit against National Australia Bank for delaying the move of $6.3 billion belonging to more than 330,000 super customers to low-fee accounts -- a decision that allowed the big four bank's financial advisers to continue to reap lucrative fees. The lawsuit, to be filed in the Victorian supreme court, will accuse two NAB subsidiaries that acted as superannuation trustees, Nulis Nominees (Australia) and MLC Nominees, of failing in their duty to put fund members first when there was a conflict of interest. In his final report last February, the banking royal commissioner Kenneth Hayne found that the two companies "prioritised the commercial interests of the NAB group or the interests of advisers, or more probably, both" by dragging out the transfers. The new class action is the latest Hayne pain felt by the bank, which lost its chief executive, Andrew Thorburn, and chairman, the former treasury secretary Ken Henry, after the commissioner excoriated them in his report. Profit has slumped more than 10% because of the scandal and the bank has set aside more than $2bn to compensate customers it has ripped off. It has already settled one class action related to the royal commission, paying almost $50m in November to people who took out worthless credit card insurance. It also faces a series of lawsuits from the corporate regulator for charging fees without providing a service that includes one lodged just before Christmas that carries a theoretical maximum penalty running into the billions of dollars. Maurice Blackburn's class action covers customers who had super accounts with the MasterKey Business Super and Personal Super funds. Customers with money in the two funds originally paid a commission to financial advisers who organised the funds, but in 2012 this was replaced with a "plan service fee" of about the same size. About $33.8m was deducted from the accounts of 220,000 members who had no adviser to give them any service, and an additional $67m was taken from members who did have an adviser, Hayne found. Under reforms brought in by the Gillard government, NAB was required to move dormant accounts, called "accrued default amounts" or ADAs, to new low-cost MySuper accounts by a deadline of 1 July 2017. But, Hayne said, this was "the outer limit for compliance and does not take account of trustees' other obligations" towards members. Other funds moved their customers earlier, he found. In evidence to the commission, NAB "acknowledged that one of the consequences of the delay was that members paid higher fees for longer than they would have had their ADAs been transferred earlier", Hayne said. "Advisers, including advisers within the NAB group, stood to benefit from this to the financial detriment of those members." Maurice Blackburn's head of class actions, Andrew Watson, said the saga was "another regrettable case of mismanagement in the superannuation sector". "MySuper was introduced to protect the retirement outcomes of Australians," he said. "MLC Nominees and Nulis's job was to move default member balances into MySuper at the time that best met their members' needs, not the needs of NAB or financial advisers." [GN] NCAA: Luke Sues Over Disregard for Health & Safety of Athletes -------------------------------------------------------------- James Luke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, and KNOX COLLEGE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00407-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., Feb. 5, 2020), seeks redress for injuries sustained as a result of the Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Knox student-athletes, including the Plaintiff. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those the Plaintiff experienced, the Defendants failed to implement adequate procedures to protect the Plaintiff and other Knox football players from the long-term dangers associated with them, according to the complaint. As a direct result of the Defendants' acts and omissions, the Plaintiff contends that he and countless former Knox football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries. Plaintiff James Luke is a natural person and citizen of the State of Illinois. He brings this class action complaint in order to vindicate similarly situated football players' rights and hold the NCAA and Knox accountable. The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate athletics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: 713.554.9099 Fax: 713.554.9098 Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378 Email: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Phone: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com NEW HAMPSHIRE: Faces Class Action Over Sexual Abuses ---------------------------------------------------- Tim Callery, writing for WMUR9, reports that a class action lawsuit reveals new allegations of abuse against New Hampshire's state-run youth detention center. The lawsuit was filed on Jan. 11. It comes just months after two former counselors were charged with the alleged sexual assault of a teenage boy at the Sununu Youth Services Center in the late 1990s. The alleged victim in that case, David Meehan, has self-identified himself, and is now the lead plaintiff in the new lawsuit. He joins 35 other men and women who claim they were physically, sexually and emotionally abused at the center between 1982 and 2014. Their attorney, Rus Rilee, told News Nine all were between the ages of 11 and 17 at the time of the alleged abuse. "These are boys and girls who were taken into state custody and then beaten, raped and tortured by the very same state employees whose job it was to protect them," Rilee said. Rilee added the alleged abuse happened both on and off the property. "When the staff members would take people off campus. It occurred in basements. It occurred in their rooms," Rilee said. The lawsuit was filed against the State of New Hampshire, The Department of Health and Human Services and former and current employees of the center. In a statement to News Nine, The New Hampshire Attorney Generals Office said, "In July 2019, the Office of the Attorney General launched a comprehensive, multi-faceted investigation of the YDC and the personnel employed at that agency focusing initially on a time frame between 1990 and 2000. The investigation into whether additional juveniles were subjected to physical or sexual violence at the YDC remains active and ongoing." [GN] NORTHEAST COMMUNITY: Reyes Suit Seeks Fines for Labor Code Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shenele Reyes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. THE NORTHEAST COMMUNITY CLINIC, a California Corporation, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV46743 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 30, 2019), seeks penalties resulting from Defendants' violation of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay all final wages due at termination or within 72 hours after separation to all employees in California, and to provide employees with accurately itemized wage statements. He adds that the Defendants further failed to provide the employees with wage statements in compliance with the Labor Code. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee in California. Northeast Community Clinic has been providing primary and preventative healthcare services since 1971 to the low-income, uninsured and underserved residents of Los Angeles County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. Meghan Maertz, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM A LAW CORPORATION 28632 Roadside Dr., Suite 203 Agoura Hills, CA, 91301 Telephone: (818) 293-5623 Facsimile: (888) 850-1310 E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com Meghan@OLFLA.com NORTHWEST COLLECTORS: Schmieder Suit and Class Claims Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman dismissed the putative class action lawsuit titled Sarah Schmieder v. Northwest Collectors, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-05457 (N.D. Ill.). The Notification of Docket Entry states that: -- Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the individual claims are voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and attorney's fees; -- The claims of putative class members are dismissed without prejudice; -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is stricken as moot; -- Status hearing set for March 20, 2020, is stricken; and -- Civil case is terminated.[CC] NOVARTIS AG: Average Wholesale Price-Related Suit in NJ Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Novartis AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (NPC) continues to defend a class action suit brought by private payors in New Jersey on the alleged overstatement of Average Wholesale Price (AWP). Lawsuits have been brought, the latest in February 2016, by various US state governmental entities and private parties against various pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (NPC), alleging that they fraudulently overstated the Average Wholesale Price (AWP) that is or has been used by payors, including state Medicaid agencies, to calculate reimbursements to healthcare providers. NPC remains a defendant in a putative class action brought by private payors in New Jersey, and vigorously contests those claims. NPC resolved an action brought by the state of Illinois for approximately USD 21 million. Novartis AG researches, develops, manufactures, and markets a range of healthcare products worldwide. The company's Innovative Medicines segment offers patented prescription medicines to enhance health outcomes for patients and health-care providers. Novartis AG has collaboration agreements with Xencor; QIAGEN N.V.; Surface Oncology; Intellia Therapeutics; Caribou Biosciences; Bristol-Myers Squibb; IBM Watson Health; Amgen; Allergan plc; Science 37, Inc.; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; PEAR Therapeutics; Pfizer; and Conatus Pharmaceuticals Inc. Novartis AG was founded in 1895 and is headquartered in Basel, Switzerland. NUWAVE LLC: Faces Cincinnati Suit Over Insurance Coverage Dispute ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company v. NUWAVE, LLC, KIANA HORN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and ELIZABETH AGUILERA, CRYSTAL RUSSELL, TERESA DISALVO, EMMA MENDOZA and SHAUNTIQUEA FOSTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Case No. 2020CH011541 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 6, 2020), is brought as a declaratory judgment action to determine the rights and obligations of the parties under an insurance policy issued by the Plaintiff to NuWave, LLC. According to the complaint, this action will resolve an insurance coverage dispute between NuWave and Cincinnati as to whether Cincinnati owes coverage to NuWave in relation to two class action lawsuits filed against NuWave in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: Elizabeth Aguilera, et al. v. NuWave, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-3550 and Kiana Horn, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NuWave, LLC, Case No. 20-cv-263 (collectively, the "Lawsuits"). The Lawsuits allege that NuWave manufactures and sells various models of countertop ovens, under product names including the NuWave Oven Pro, NuWave Oven Pro Plus, and the NuWave Oven Elite. An integral part of each Oven is a plastic dome. The Lawsuits allege that the plastic Domes prematurely fail and are susceptible to cracking after minimal use of the Ovens as directed. The Lawsuits refer to this problem as a "uniform defect." The Lawsuits allege that NuWave is well aware of these problems with its product. Customers have complained about the product online, directly to NuWave or through a third-party Web site. Despite such knowledge, NuWave continues to falsely advertise that the Domes are high quality, dishwasher safe, durable, and shatter resistant, the Plaintiffs allege. In response to NuWave's tender of the Horn Suit, Cincinnati explained why its policy provided no coverage to NuWave for the Horn Suit. In response to NuWave's tender of the Aguilera Suit in May 2018, Cincinnati explained why its policy provided no coverage to NuWave for that Lawsuit. On August 27, 2018, NuWave agreed in writing to withdraw any request for insurance coverage from Cincinnati for the Aguilera Lawsuit. Cincinnati contends that the Lawsuits do not allege that anyone was hurt or suffered any type of bodily injury, and do not seek damages for any Bodily Injury. As a result, coverage under the portions of the Policy relating to Bodily Injury is not triggered by the Lawsuits. The Lawsuits do not allege that anyone suffered "injury" arising from any of the Personal and Advertising Injury "offenses," nor do the Lawsuits seek damages for any injury arising out of any of the specified offenses. As a result, the Lawsuits do not trigger coverage under the Personal and Advertising Injury portion of the Policy, Cincinnati explains. Cincinnati moves the Court for an order declaring that: NuWave is not entitled to coverage from Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company for the Horn Lawsuit and the Aguilera Lawsuit. Cincinnati avers that it has and had no obligation to pay for the past or future costs of defense of NuWave in relation to the Horn or Aguilera Lawsuits. Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Ohio. NuWave sells products, including the ovens at issue in this case, throughout the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hope Nightingale, Esq. Christine Beaderstadt, Esq. LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP 303 W. Madison, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-781-6614 (Nightingale) Phone: f312-781-6562 (Beaderstadt) OLD NAVY: Faces Barba Suit Over Fraudulent Advertising Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------- ANASTASHA BARBA, for Herself as a Private Attorney General, and/or On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. OLD NAVY LLC; OLD NAVY (APPAREL), LLC; OLD NAVY HOLDINGS, LLC; GPS SERVICES, INC.; THE GAP, INC; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. CGC-19-581937 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 30, 2019), alleges that the Defendants violated the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the False Advertising Law, and the Unfair Competition Law by engaging in nationwide fraudulent advertising scheme. For years, Old Navy has perpetrated a massive false discount advertising scheme across nearly all of its Old Navy-branded products, across all of its sales channels, the Plaintiff alleges. She says that Old Navy advertises perpetual or near perpetual discounts from Old Navy's self-created list prices for the products. Old Navy represents its list prices to be the "regular" and normal prices of the items, and the list prices function as reference prices from which the advertised discounts and percentage-off sales are calculated. According to the complaint, Old Navy's discounts and reference prices are false, because Old Navy rarely if ever offers the products at the advertised list price. Old Navy invents inflated and fictitious list prices in order to enable it to advertise perpetual store-wide "sale" events and product discounts to induce customers to purchase its products. Old Navy's marketing plan is to trick its customers into believing that its products are worth, and have a value equal to, the inflated list price, and that the lower advertised sale price represents a special bargain--when in reality and unbeknownst to the customer, the "sale" price is approximately equal to Old Navy's usual and normal selling price for the product, says the complaint. Old Navy's nationwide fraudulent advertising scheme harms consumers like the Plaintiff, who purchased falsely discounted products on Old Navy's website from her home in California, by causing them to pay more than they otherwise would have paid and to buy more than they otherwise would have bought, the Plaintiff contends. Old Navy calls itself "one of the fastest-growing apparel brands in the US and category leader in family apparel."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel M. Hattis, Esq. Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq. HATTIS & LUKACS Twenty-First Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95811 Telephone: (425) 233 8650 Facsimile: (425) 412-7171 E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com pki@hattislaw.com - and - Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. Shane T. Prince, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. Greentree Centre, Suite 410 525 Route 73 N. Marlton, NJ 08057 Telephone: (856) 797-9951 Facsimile: (856) 797-9978 Email: sdenittis@denittislaw.com sprince@denittislaw.com PATTERN ENERGY: Andrews & Springer Notes of Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed by another law firm on behalf of shareholders of Pattern Energy Group Inc. (NASDAQGS: PEGI) ("Pattern Energy Group" or the "Company") for possible corporate misconduct and breach of fiduciary duty. A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from Andrews & Springer LLC. If you currently own shares of Pattern Energy Group and want to receive additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit us at http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-investigations/pattern-energy-group-class-action-investigation/ or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn - www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter - www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook - www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. On November 4, 2019, Pattern Energy Group and private equity firm Thoma Bravo LLC ("Thoma Bravo") announced the signing of a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Thoma Bravo will acquire Pattern Energy Group in a merger worth $6.1 billion (the "Merger"). As a result of the Merger, Pattern Energy Group shareholders are only anticipated to receive $26.75 per share in cash in exchange for each share of Pattern Energy Group. A Pattern Energy Group shareholder represented by another law firm has filed a class action complaint against Pattern Energy Group for federal securities violations. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court, District of Delaware, Case No. 19-cv-02360-UNA. According to the lawsuit, which was filed on December 27, 2019, defendants filed a proxy statement (the "Proxy") with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the Merger. The Proxy omits material information with respect to the Merger, which renders the Proxy false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff seeks that the Merger should be enjoined until defendants disclose more information to stockholders. Andrews & Springer is a boutique securities class action law firm representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having formerly defended some of the largest financial institutions in the world, our founding members use their valuable knowledge, experience, and superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving positive results for investors. These traits are the hallmarks of our innovative approach to each case our Firm decides to prosecute. For more information please visit our website at www.andrewsspringer.com. Contact: Craig J. Springer, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER Toll Free: 1-800-423-6013 Email: cspringer@andrewsspringer.com [GN] PERDUE FARMS: Fails to Provide Meal & Rest Periods, Williams Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- RONNIE WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PERDUE FARMS INC., a Maryland corporation, PERDUE FOODS LLC, a Maryland limited liability company; PETALUMA ACQUISITION; LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; COLEMAN NATURAL PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware corporation; COLEMAN NATURAL FOODS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-19-581865 (Cal. Super., San Francisco, Dec. 27, 2019), alleges that the Defendants have failed to provide the Plaintiff and others with meal and rest periods, to pay premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods, to pay minimum wages for all hours worked, and to pay overtime pay at the correct rate, in violation to the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants maintained a policy or practice of requiring the Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees to shorten their meal periods by at least ten minutes. The Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees were required to clock in on time when returning from lunch. If they clocked in a minute over their allotted 30-minutes for lunch, they were docked 15 minutes from their pay. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee from Oct. 2016 through Jan. 2019. Perdue Farms is the parent company of Perdue Foods and Perdue AgriBusiness, based in Salisbury, Maryland. Perdue Foods is a major chicken, turkey, and pork processing company in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. Farrah Grant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com farrah@setarehlaw.com PETMED EXPRESS: Awaits Court's Execution of Joint Consent Decree ---------------------------------------------------------------- PetMed Express, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2019, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in the case, Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. PetMed Express, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-02391, are still awaiting the district court's execution of a joint proposed consent decree. In January 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed by a different individual in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the Company's website, www.1800petmeds.com, does not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), and discriminates against visually impaired individuals. The Plaintiff initially named a New York corporation named Pet Meds Inc., which is not related or affiliated with the Company, as the defendant. However, the Plaintiff sought to remedy that error by requesting leave to file an amended complaint naming the Company, which request the Court granted on April 9, 2019. On April 18, 2019, the Court granted the Plaintiff's request to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, where it is currently pending. The matter is styled Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. PetMed Express, Inc.; Case No. 19-cv-02391. The Company denies any wrongdoing. As of July 24, 2019, the Company and the Plaintiff have reached a confidential settlement in which the Plaintiff and the Company will enter into a consent decree requiring among other things, the Company to modify its website to comply with certain accessibility standards within the next 24 months, and the matter will be dismissed with prejudice. As part of the confidential settlement agreement, the Company will pay the Plaintiff a sum of $10,000. The parties are awaiting the district court's execution of the joint proposed consent decree. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. PetMed Express, Inc. and its subsidiaries, doing business as 1-800-PetMeds, operates as a pet pharmacy in the United States. The company markets prescription and non-prescription pet medications, and other health products for dogs and cats directly to the consumers. PetMed Express, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Delray Beach, Florida. PHONG TRAN: Improperly Pays Overtime Wages, Caraveo Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Genoveva Caraveo and Lynette Gaitan, individually, and as a representatives of other aggrieved employees v. PHONG TRAN, an individual, PHONG TRAN DDS, INC, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV04722 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 5, 2020), arises from the Defendants' practice of improperly paying overtime wages. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated California law by only paying overtime for work that was more than 40 hours per week. The Defendants did not follow California's "daily overtime" rules, which require overtime compensation for work in excess of 8 hours per day. As a result, the Defendants owe overtime payments to the Plaintiffs and other hourly aggrieved employees. Additionally, the Plaintiffs allege, the Defendants did not authorize or permit lawful meal periods and rest periods, and failed to provide breaks at legally required intervals. The Plaintiffs and Aggrieved Employees were regularly required to work through meal periods and rest periods. As a result of this, the paystubs provided to the Plaintiffs and Aggrieved Employees were inaccurate with regard to overtime, and did not provide a proper breakdown of gross and net wages, meal and rest period premiums, etc., says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were dental assistants of the Defendants. The Defendants are a dental practice with locations in Pico Rivera and San Jose, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary R. Carlin, ESQ. Brent S. Buchsbaum, ESQ. Laurel N. Haag, ESQ. LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP 301 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 1550 Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: (562) 432-8933 Facsimile: (562) 435-1656 Email: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com laurel@mcarlinbuchsbaum.com QUDIAN INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Qudian Inc. ("Qudian" or the "Company") (NYSE:QD) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Southern District of New York, and indexed under 20-cv-00577, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Qudian securities between December 13, 2018 and January 15, 2020, 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 Qudian securities during the class period, you have until March 23, 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 the number of shares purchased. Qudian was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Xiamen, the People's Republic of China ("China"). Qudian provides online small consumer credit products in China, using big data-enabled technologies, including artificial intelligence and machine learning to purportedly transform the consumer finance experience. Qudian offers small credit products, such as cash credit products; merchandise credit products to finance borrowers' direct purchase of merchandise offered on its marketplace on installment basis; and budget auto financing products. In addition, it operates a platform for loan recommendations and referrals. 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) regulatory developments in China threatened to negatively impact Qudian's fiscal full year 2019 ("FY19") financial results; (ii) Qudian's business was unprepared to mitigate the risks associated with these regulatory changes; (iii) as a result, Qudian's loan portfolio was plagued by growing delinquency rates; (iv) all of the foregoing made Qudian's repeated assertions concerning its FY19 financial guidance unrealistic; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On January 16, 2020, Qudian issued a press release announcing "that the Company withdraws its fiscal 2019 guidance and will not issue guidance in the near term due to uncertainty related to the recent regulatory and operating environment." The press release stated that "China's online consumer finance industry was affected by several regulatory developments in the fourth quarter of 2019, including further restrictions on loan collection practices, more stringent user data privacy rules and the requirements for P2P lending platforms to orderly exit their P2P businesses," which had "reduced the availability of funding for consumer credit and driven up delinquency rates across the industry, including the Company's loan portfolio." On this news, Qudian's ADS price fell $0.84 per share, or 19.13%, to close at $3.55 per share on January 16, 2020. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com Contact: Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] RANDSTAD TECHNOLOGIES: Earnest Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Lonnie Earnest, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. RANDSTAD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00137 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 5, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime and other damages owed to the Plaintiff whom the Defendant paid straight-time-for-overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant does not pay its hourly employees overtime as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. Instead, the Defendant pays its hourly employees the same hourly rate for all hours worked in a workweek, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek (straight-time-for-overtime). The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's straight-time-for-overtime pay plan violates the FLSA because hourly employees are owed overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week at the rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rates. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a project manager. Randstad provides staffing solutions in various sectors including information technology (IT), accounting, engineering, and call centers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael K. Burke, Esq. 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: mburke@brucknerburch.com rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. William Liles, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com wliles@mybackwages.com RCO RESTORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baez Claims ------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD BAEZ, individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Defendants RCO RESTORATION CORP.; WILLIAM MOROCHO; and DARWIN DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-01066 (S.D.N.Y., February 7, 2020) alleges that the Defendants failed to compensate him and similarly-situated workers overtime wages as mandated by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and willfully refused to pay him and other similarly-situated non-exempt employees, including but not limited to general construction workers, overtime compensation at the rate of one and one half times the regular hourly rate for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek and wages for weeks worked but were uncompensated. RCO Restoration Corp. is a domestic limited liability company that operates construction business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Toogood Calls Debt Collection "Abusive" -------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETRA TOOGOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00093-JRW (W.D. Ky., February 6, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged abusive debt collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the statement on the collection letter received by Plaintiff, regarding the alleged debt owed to Waste Management, was false and misleading because an additional invoice would be a completely separate, new obligation, unrelated to the amount currently owed and the statement in the Letter implies that the current obligation itself may be increasing. RMS is a debt collector headquartered at 240 Emery Street, Bethlehem, PA 18015.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street, Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com RESURGENT CAPITAL: Cobb Sues in N.D. Georgia Over FDCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital Services, LP, et al. The case is captioned as Janay Cobb, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Resurgent Capital Services, LP; LVNV Funding LLC; and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:19-cv-05833-CAP-JSA (N.D. Ga., Dec. 30, 2019). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Resurgent Capital provides financial services. The company manages debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers. LVNV Funding LLC is a collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Braxton Mason, Esq. MASON LAW GROUP, LLC 1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 920-8040 Facsimile: (404) 920-8039 E-mail: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com RING LLC: Faces Hagan Suit Over Faulty Camera Devices & Systems --------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Hagan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RING LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01168 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2020), is brought to hold the Defendant responsible for its defective devices and systems, which are primarily cameras or doorbells equipped with cameras. Mr. Hagan also asks the Court to require that the Defendant take all necessary measures to secure the privacy of user accounts and devices, and to compensate him and the members of proposed classes for the damage that its acts and omissions have caused. The Defendant's devices--primarily cameras or doorbells equipped with cameras--are designed to use wireless technology and home networks to enable Ring device owners to monitor and control the devices remotely, through the device owner's online account or mobile phone. The Defendant promises its users "peace of mind" and "security here, there, and everywhere." It also promises that it takes "extremely seriously the privacy, security and control of customers' devices and personal information." But instead of providing complete, proactive home security and creating a Ring of Security around users' homes, the Defendant's devices actually expose the most intimate areas of their owners' homes to hackers, who are able to exploit security flaws and vulnerabilities in the Defendant's system, the Plaintiff alleges. According to the complaint, the Defendant has known about the vulnerabilities in its systems for years, through customers' complaints of hacking, customers' requests to implement more robust, industry-standard security measures, news stories, and through other internal and external sources. Instead of implementing and updating its security protocols in the face of widespread reports of hacking incidents, the Defendant disclaims responsibility, refuses to acknowledge any weaknesses in its systems, and places the blame for these terrifying incidents squarely on its customers. In the evening on December 7, 2019, the Plaintiff and his fiancee were in his home when his Ring alarm blared loudly. A man began talking to the Plaintiff through the Ring device's two-way talk feature, at first pretending to be from Ring by stating he was responding to a security call and asking the Plaintiff if he had any concerns. The man then began asking the Plaintiff perverted sexual questions. The Plaintiff removed the device's battery to stop the man from continuing to speak through the device. Ring's failure to adequately safeguard access to his Ring account and camera caused the injuries he suffered, the Plaintiff contends. But for Ring's acts and omissions in designing and maintaining deficient, inadequately protected systems, the Plaintiff's camera would not have been hacked, and he would not have been harassed and vulnerable to risk of theft or fraud, says the complaint. Mr. Hagan purchased a Ring Stick Up Cam from Amazon in July 2019, and thereafter, installed the Ring Stick Up Cam in the living room of his home. Ring designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells "smart" home security devices such as cameras and doorbells equipped with cameras.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Galdston, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE, P.C. 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 340 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: (619) 489-0300 Email: bgaldston@bm.net - and - Amey J. Park, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: apark@bm.net RING LLC: Orange Sues Over Hacking of Defective Wi-Fi Cameras ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN BAKER ORANGE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. RING LLC and AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO (C.D. Cal., Dec. 26, 2019), alleges claims for negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, breach of implied warranty and unjust enrichment against the Defendants in connection with the defective design of Ring's Wi-Fi cameras. The Plaintiff purchased a Ring outdoor camera for his house in July 2019 for $249. The Ring camera was installed over his garage with a view of the driveway. Mr. Orange purchased the Ring camera to provide additional security for him and his family, which includes his wife and three children, aged 7, 9, and 10. Recently, Mr. Orange's children were playing basketball when a voice came on through the camera's two-way speaker system. An unknown person engaged with Mr. Orange's children commenting on their basketball play and encouraging them to get closer to the camera. Once Mr. Orange learned of the incident, he changed the password on the Ring camera and enabled two-factor authentication. Prior to changing his password, Mr. Orange protected his Ring camera with a medium-strong password. Prior to the recent hacking incidents, Mr. Orange says he was unaware of and believes that Ring did not provide users the ability to secure their systems with two-factor authentication. According to the complaint, Wi-Fi cameras are among Ring's most popular offerings. They are designed to be strategically placed throughout a property, enabling authorized users to see covered areas in high definition and to communicate directly with occupants via a two-way speaker-microphone system. Ring promises its customers "peace of mind" with its Wi-Fi enabled smart security systems. Unfortunately, the Plaintiff asserts, Ring's cameras fail to deliver on its most basic promise. He notes that lax security standards and protocols render its camera systems vulnerable to cyber-attack. Indeed, over the past several months numerous Ring customers reported that their camera systems had been hacked by malicious third parties who gained access to the video and two-way speaker-microphone system which they used to invade the privacy of customers' homes and terrorize unsuspecting occupants, many of whom are children, says the complaint. While Ring quickly attempted to distance itself from liability by blaming customers for failing to create strong security passwords, it is Ring, who failed to provide sufficiently robust security measures, such as two-factor authentication and other protocols necessary to maintain the integrity and inviolability of its cameras, the Plaintiff argues. As a result of Ring's defective design, and its failure to imbue its Wi-Fi cameras with sufficient security protocols, its customers' most basic privacy rights were violated along with the security and sanctity of their homes, the Plaintiff contends. Ring is a home security and smart home company that manufactures a range of home security products including Wi-Fi enabled smart cameras. Ring LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Amazon.com with its place of business located at 1523 26th St, Santa Monica, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR. 422 S. Curson Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90036 Telephone: 314 662-2836 E-mail: casey@lawofficeflynn.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: 813 223-5505 Facsimile: 813 223-5402 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com RING: Camera Class Action Seeks $5 Million in Damages ----------------------------------------------------- Christina Carrega, writing for ABC News, reports that Amazon and Ring were slapped with a $5 million proposed class action federal lawsuit that alleges their camera systems are vulnerable to cyberattacks. Earlier in December, at least four families in Florida, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas reported that their Ring camera systems were compromised. In those cases, the customers say hackers tormented them with racial slurs, encouraged children into destructive behavior and demanded a ransom in Bitcoin. But John Baker Orange, the lead plaintiff of the lawsuit, charges that there are "thousands of putative class members" around the world. Orange, of Alabama, bought the Ring outdoor camera in July for $249 to add extra security for his wife and three young children, aged 7 to 10. As the children were playing basketball, an unknown voice came through the camera's two-way speaker commenting on their game and encouraging them to get closer to the camera, according to the lawsuit. Regarding the multi-million dollar lawsuit, the California-based Ring LLC. told ABC News that it does not comment on legal matters. Ring was released in 2015 and expanded to include indoor and outdoor cameras that feature video with two-way audio communications. The security product is "affordable, easy to install, simple to use," and is designed to operate through the customer's Wi-Fi network and has partnerships with law enforcement agencies around the country, according to the suit. Amazon acquired Ring in February 2018 for $1 billion. "Our mission to reduce crime in neighborhoods has been at the core of everything we do at Ring," Jamie Siminoff, CEO and chief inventor of Ring, said in a statement after the acquisition was completed in April 2018. After the reports of back-to-back hacking incidents, Ring responded by placing "blame squarely on its customers" for using "weak passwords that have previously been compromised," the lawsuit charged. "Ring failed to meet this most basic obligation by not ensuring its Wi-Fi-enabled cameras were protected against cyber-attack," according to the lawsuit that was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California. "Notably, Ring only required users enter a basic password and did not offer or did not compel two-factor authentication." When reached for comment, Amazon referred ABC News to Ring, who said it does not comment on legal matters. The lawsuit also charges that the Ring's "lax security" has become the subject of a podcast where hackers host live events where they "terrorize occupants for entertainment." Ring, without commenting on any specific incident, defended the security of its products. "Ring has not had a data breach. Our security team has investigated these incidents, and we have no evidence of an unauthorized intrusion or compromise of Ring's systems or network," the company said in a statement. "It is not uncommon for bad actors to harvest data from other company's data breaches and create lists like this so that other bad actors can attempt to gain access to other services." Ring said it notified customers whose accounts were exposed and reset their passwords. To help keep its products secure, the company said customers should enable two-factor authentication and change their passwords. The lawsuit is seeking $5 million in damages for negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and violation of the unfair competition charges. [GN] RITE AID: Nucci Moves to Certify Class of Non-Exempt Cal. Workers ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order certifying the matter styled KRISTAL NUCCI and KELLY SHAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency, and ANA GOSWICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RITE AID CORPORATION, THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC. and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 5:19-cv-01434-LHK (N.D. Cal.), as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs' proposed class is defined as: All non-exempt employees, excluding pharmacists, pharmacy interns, and asset protection agents, working in any Rite Aid store in California at any time from March 13, 2015 through the trial date (the "Class Period"). There are approximately 26,232 putative class members. The Class claims are: 1) failure to indemnify business expenses; 2) failure to provide uniforms; 3) failure to furnish accurate wage statements; 4) waiting time penalties; and 5) restitution under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL") Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. The Class seeks certification on the theory that Rite Aid has a policy of requiring that employees purchase clothing constituting a uniform, that Rite Aid is required to and does not reimburse employees for the costs and expenses of this uniform, that Plaintiffs have provided sufficient evidence of this policy, and that certification is, therefore, mandated by Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 765 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2014) and progeny. According to the Motion, liability for the Class will turn almost exclusively on two common questions: 1) whether Rite Aid's "Team Colors" of navy blue tops and khaki-colored bottoms constitute a uniform under California law; and 2) whether Rite Aid, as a matter of practice and policy, provides blue vests as an alternative to the required "Team Colors" uniform, including in a sufficient number to provide to all employees for every shift. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to (i) alternatively, certify subclasses to be defined by the Court's discretion; (ii) appoint them Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class or subclasses certified; (iii) appoint the law firm of Aiman-Smith & Marcy as class counsel; and (iv) make such other orders as are necessary to effectuate the primary relief sought. The Court will commence a hearing on April 16, 2020, at 1:30 p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq. Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq. Hallie Von Rock, Esq. Carey A. James, Esq. Brent A. Robinson, Esq. AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY 7677 Oakport St. Suite 1150 Oakland, CA 94621 Telephone: (510) 817-2711 Facsimile: (510) 562-6830 E-mail: ras@asmlawyers.com rwlm@asmlawyers.com hvr@asmlawyers.com caj@asmlawyers.com bar@asmlawyers.com RMLS-HOP OHIO: Slaughter Moves to Certify Class of Tipped Servers ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned SHAKURA SLAUGHTER v. RMLS-HOP OHIO, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-03812-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), moves to conditionally certify a collective action consisting of: All present and former tipped server employees and other employees with similar job titles and/or positions of RMLS-HOP Ohio, L.L.C. at Defendant's Hilliard, Ohio and Reynoldsburg, Ohio locations during the period of three years preceding the commencement of this action [September 3, 2016] to the present. Ms. Slaughter, individually, and as representative of all similarly situated Plaintiffs, moves the Court for conditional class certification to remedy the Defendants' alleged failure to pay her, and all other similarly situated Plaintiffs, minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. She alleges that the Defendants have engaged in a practice of failing to pay minimum wage as prescribed by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff also asks the Court to direct that notice be sent to potential opt-ins enabling them to join.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott, II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC The Caxton Building 812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (216) 350-6313 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com RSCR CALIFORNIA: Martinez Sues over Wrongful Termination -------------------------------------------------------- ARACELY MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. RSCR CALIFORNIA INC.; RES-CARE INC.; RES-CARE CALIFORNIA INC.; NANCY CADIZ; RITA NOVAK; and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV05053 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles, February 7, 2020) alleges that the Defendant terminated the Plaintiff's employment following her refusal to the management's clock out demands for breaks and her complaints against the understaffing and unsafe practices that affect patient care in the facility. The Plaintiff seeks damages in violations of public policy, the California Labor Code, and the California Business and Professions Code. ResCare provides services and support to seniors, people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, children, and job seekers. RSCR California, Inc. is a Delaware corporation doing business throughout Los Angeles County and the State of California. ResCare, Inc. is a Kentucky corporation doing business throughout Los Angeles County and the State of California. Res-Care California Inc., which will do business as RCCA Services, is a Delaware corporation doing business throughout Los Angeles County and the State of California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond P. Boucher, Esq. Maria L. Weitz, Esq. Mallory Whitelaw, Esq. BOUCHER LLP 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-4903 Telephone: (818) 340-5400 Facsimile: (818) 340-5401 E-mail: ray@boucher.la weitz@boucher.la whitelaw@boucher.la - and - Sahag Majarian, II, Esq. Law OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: sahagii@aol.com SAMB INC: Rahman Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Abidur Rahman, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs v. SAMB INC. d/b/a Subway, ABDUL KALAM and SHAHJIAR KABEZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-00641 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 5, 2020), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the Plaintiff and others similarly situated to him are entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime pay, unpaid spread-of-hours premium, statutory penalties for wage notice and wage statement violations, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff contends that he was only paid $3.00 or $4.00 per hour solely in cash during his employment, which is well below the minimum wage. He also alleges that despite often working in excess of forty hours per week and ten hours per day, he was not paid overtime or any spread-of-hours pay. He adds that the Defendants committed statutory wage violations by failing to provide him with a wage statement or a wage notice. Mr. Rahman was employed at a Subway franchise restaurant as a non-exempt employee from August 20, 2019, to January 28, 2020. SAMB Inc. is a Subway franchise restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert D. Salaman, Esq. AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC 45 Broadway, Suite 1420 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 825-1400 Email: rob@akinlaws.com SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA: ORBAI Assists in $400M Class Suit vs. DA ---------------------------------------------------------------- ORBAI, a developer of artificial intelligence (AI) technology, on Jan. 21, 2020, announced the use of their legal AI platform to assist in filing a $400M class action lawsuit against the District Attorney of Santa Clara County (and other parties). The lawsuit was filed on 1/7/2020, was served to DA Jeff Rosen on 1/13/2020 and was brought on behalf of men in Santa Clara county who may have been wrongfully prosecuted for family violence complaints. ORBAI used its Legal AI platform (code-named Justine Falcon) to mine data from the California Superior Court Website (which holds records of all civil, criminal and family law cases in California) using her Law Stats 101 skill to search a given name, find all cases for that name and pull them in pdf form. Using this skill Justine went through all the case files of the district attorney prosecutors looking for cases that are similar to the lead case in the lawsuit. The software then created a list of all those cases as well as a list of the top 20 DA attorneys that prosecuted most of them. This list of DA prosecutors and lists of their similar cases were used as an Exhibit in the class certification section of the lawsuit filing. Class Certification for class action lawsuits involves finding more than 40 cases that are similar to the "lead" case in a lawsuit, allowing a legal team to just litigate the lead case and say "ditto" to get money for the class cases as well. To do this, the team has to be able to prove to a judge that there are questions or law or fact common to the class, and the claims of the lead case are typical of the claims of the class (among other criteria). This can take teams of lawyers and paralegals months of labor in a big class-action certification, but Justine Falcon was able to fully automate the filing with AI and do it in a few hours. With some manual modifications of the final reports, they were ready to go in the filing within a few hours. "This is a very focused application where AI has great commercial value in law, as it transforms a $4M lead lawsuit into a $400M class-action lawsuit," said Brent Oster, founder and CEO of ORBAI. Law Stats 101 can also mine case statistics from any attorney or law firm, to pull data from their past cases that can be an Exhibit in a filing to show the prevalence of certain trends. One of the other cases related to the DA Class Action was against divorce attorneys that file accusations of domestic violence (DV) crimes against the opposing spouse in 43 percent of their cases, despite these types of crimes occurring within less than 0.1 percent of the general population. ORBAI's Justine Falcon is a legal AI for use by attorneys and self-representing (pro-se) individuals that (in addition to Law Stats 101) has skills to do verbal client interviews and generate the appropriate document, translate and format large client documents to legal language, look up legal citations within different corpus of law, and most importantly, the platform has a predictor skill that can train on the case files of a given attorney and learn to predict what they will do next, which is very handy in litigation. Justine Falcon is expected to be in beta test with attorneys late 2020. Supporting Materials Here is the case file for the Lawsuit vs the Santa Clara DA on the California Court Portal: https://portal.scscourt.org/case/NDI0OTY0MA== Here is a link to the description and technology of the Justine Falcon legal AI: https://www.orbai.ai/justine-falcon-legal-ai.htm For more information on ORBAI, please visit: www.orbai.com ORBAI on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/orbai/ About ORBAI ORBAI develops next generation artificial intelligence (AI) technology. This includes conversational speech interfaces that learn over time and artificial vision systems that learn to see and identify objects in the world as they're encountered. In addition to AI employees, the company's Human AI technology is being developed to enable vocational AIs that can augment people in the workplace, making them more than human. View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200121005327/en/ Contacts Brent Oster ORBAI Ph: 408-963-8671 media.relations@orbai.com [GN] SANTEE COOPER: V.C. Summer Plant Lawsuit Kicked Back to State Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- John Monk, writing for The State, reports that a class action lawsuit resulting from the failed V.C. Summer nuclear plant and involving South Carolina-owned power company Santee Cooper is back in state court. That's the latest turn of the legal screw in a lawsuit involving more than 2 million of Santee Cooper's customers. A key issue is whether Santee Cooper's customers will be stuck with paying several billion dollars that the power company is said to owe due to the nuclear project's failure in mid-construction in July 2017. Another affected matter is whether the historic state-owned utility, which began as a rural electrification project in the 1930s, will eventually be sold to a big out-of-state energy company or remain under state control. Last year, Santee Cooper's partner in the doomed V.C. Summer nuclear venture — SCANA, a publicly traded company suffering financial woes because of the project — was sold to Dominion Energy, one of the nation's largest power companies. The state's 170 lawmakers will be mulling the possible sale of Santee Cooper in this legislative session. Last week, U.S. Judge Terry Wooten ordered that the Santee Cooper case -- which had temporarily been transferred to federal court -- be sent back to state court to be tried before special Judge Jean Toal, a former S.C. Supreme Court chief justice. It is unclear when a trial will begin. Toal had originally set Feb. 24 as the trial start date in the case. But Judge Wooten's order could be appealed to the federal 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, delaying the trial. The lawsuit was initially filed in August 2017 by Santee Cooper customers seeking to avoid having to pay for the failed nuclear plant. Costs for the project -- estimated at $9 billion before it failed -- had for years been added to their monthly bills and continue to be added, according to a complaint in the case. Over the next two years, the parties "vigorously litigated in state court, engaging in significant discovery — including dozens of depositions and the exchange of millions of pages of documents — and arguing numerous substantive motions," according to a memorandum in the case. Defendants in the case included Santee Cooper, SCANA and various electric cooperatives to which Santee Cooper provides power to be sold to customers around the state. As joint partners in the nuclear venture, Santee Cooper contributed 45% of the cost, while SCANA took responsibility for project oversight and shouldered 55% of the cost. In November, SCANA suddenly moved to transfer the case from Toal's court to federal court, where it wound up before Judge Wooten. In the month before the case was transferred, Toal had certified the case as a class action, rejected a move by SCANA to send the case to an arbitrator and set a three-week trial to begin on Feb. 24, according to records in the case. Although numerous lawsuits have been filed in state and federal court against SCANA, this lawsuit is the major legal action against Santee Cooper on behalf of ratepayers. According to plaintiffs in the case, Santee Cooper increased its electricity rates five times over the years to pay for construction and other costs associated with the doomed nuclear project. Santee Cooper spent some $4.7 billion on the failed project, and its customers continue to pay extra on their monthly bills for the failure, according to plaintiffs. Santee Cooper is a main defendant in the case, along with SCANA and SCE&G. Plaintiffs are asking the court to refund hundreds of millions of dollars in costs associated with the failed nuclear project they say they have already paid in increased monthly bills. Plaintiffs also also asking the court to rule that Santee Cooper cannot keep passing costs for the failed project on to them — a future amount estimated at more than $4 billion. After the case was transferred to Wooten, the Santee Cooper customers, along with Santee Cooper, urged Wooten to send the the case back to state court, arguing there was no need for federal courts to take up the case. "The central issues involve South Carolina actors, agreements made in South Carolina, governed by South Carolina law, affecting a South Carolina power project and costing South Carolina customers billions of dollars," they argued. Wooten agreed. "The court finds it would not be appropriate to exercise federal jurisdiction here," he wrote in his order last week. [GN] SASOL LIMITED: Moshell Sues Over Decline in Value of Securities --------------------------------------------------------------- Chad Lindsey Moshell, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SASOL LIMITED, DAVID EDWARD CONSTABLE, BONGANI NQWABABA, STEPHEN CORNELL, PAUL VICTOR, and FLEETWOOD GROBLER, Case No. 1:20-cv-01008 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 5, 2020), arises from the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities after confirming that on January 13, 2020, the Company experienced an explosion and fire at its ethane cracker and derivatives complex in Lake Charles, Louisiana. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired Sasol securities between March 10, 2015, and January 13, 2020, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its top officials. On October 27, 2014, Sasol announced the construction of an $8.1 billion ethane cracker and derivatives complex in Lake Charles, Louisiana, dubbed the Lake Charles Chemicals Project ("LCCP"). According to the Company, the LCCP includes seven manufacturing units, some of which are in continued development, including the low-density polyethylene ("LDPE") facility and Ziegler alcohol, ethoxylates and Guerbet alcohol facilities, among others. The Plaintiff alleges 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) Sasol had conducted insufficient due diligence into, and failed to account for multiple issues with the LCCP, as well as the true cost of the project; (ii) construction and operation of the LCCP was consequently plagued by control weaknesses, delays, rising costs, and technical issues; (iii) these issues were exacerbated by Sasol's top-level management, who engaged in improper and unethical behavior with respect to financial reporting for the LCCP and the project's oversight; (iv) all the foregoing was reasonably likely to render the LCCP significantly more expensive than disclosed and negatively impact the Company's financial results; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On June 6, 2016, Sasol reported "that the expected total capital expenditure for the LCCP could increase up to $11 billion, including site infrastructure and utility improvements"; a slower rate of capital "resulted in an extended project schedule and contributed to further project cost increases"; "the expected returns for the project have reduced due to changes in long-term price assumptions and the higher capital estimates"; and "the increase in the estimated LCCP capital cost and extended schedule will reduce the expected project returns by approximately the same amount as the Company's lower long-term price assumptions." Following these disclosures, Sasol's American depositary receipt ("ADR") price fell $3.53 per share, or 10.99%, to close at $28.60 per share on June 6, 2016. On January 14, 2020, Sasol issued a press release confirming that on January 13, 2020, the Company "experienced an explosion and fire at its LCCP low-density polyethylene LDPE unit." Sasol stated that "the unit was in the final stages of commissioning and startup when the incident occurred" and "has been shut down and an investigation is underway to determine the cause of the incident, the extent of the damage and resulting impact on the LDPE unit's beneficial operation schedule." Following these disclosures, Sasol's ADR price fell $1.70 per share, or 7.84%, over the following two trading days, closing at $19.99 per share on January 15, 2020. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff allegedly acquired Sasol securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Sasol operates as an integrated chemical and energy company in South Africa.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Brian Schall, Esq. Rina Restaino, Esq. Kate Kearney, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (424) 303-1964 Email: brian@schallfirm.com rina@schallfirm.com kate@schallfirm.com SAVOYA LLC: $750K Alabsi Suit Settlement Gets Initial Court Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Kandis A. Westmore grants preliminary approval to the settlement agreement entered into by the parties in the lawsuit captioned BILLY ALABSI v. SAVOYA, LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-06510-KAW (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Billy Alabsi filed the instant putative class and collective action against Defendant Savoya, LLC, on October 24, 2018, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and various state labor laws. The Defendant operates a chauffeured limousine and luxury car transportation service. The Plaintiff and the putative class worked for the Defendant as drivers. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant misclassified its drivers as independent contractors, rather than employees, and failed to pay them minimum and overtime wages, among other violations. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant agrees to pay a "Total Settlement Amount" of $750,000 to settle the claims of the 44 drivers, who worked for Defendant in California. Of the Total Settlement Amount, the Plaintiff's counsel intends to seek an award of 25%, or $187,500 for attorney's fees and $6,000 in costs. The Total Settlement Amount also includes a $7,500 incentive payment for the named Plaintiff, and an estimated $10,000 for administration costs. The Maximum Settlement Amount includes $10,000 in penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"); $7,500 shall be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") and $2,500 will be part of the Net Settlement Amount for distribution to the participating class members. This leaves a Net Settlement Amount of $531,500 for the 44 class members. The Settlement will be distributed to the class members based on the number of workweeks completed during the relevant class period. Additionally, 5% of the Net Settlement Amount will be allotted to waiting time penalties, as the waiting time penalties represent approximately 5% of the total damages estimate. This amount will be divided between former drivers, based on their average weekly earnings. The claims being released by the Settlement are the causes of action asserted in the Action, as well as any additional wage and hour claims that could have been asserted in the Action based on the facts and transactions pled in the complaint. In her Order, Judge Westmore grants preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement, including the provisional certification of the class action. The Court appoints, for settlement purposes only, Billy Alabsi as class representative; Bryan Schwartz Law as class counsel; and Rust Consulting as Settlement Administrator. The Court also approves the revised notice provided by the parties on January 22, 2020. The Court sets this schedule: -- Defendants to provide Class Member list to Settlement Administrator: 10 days from the date of this order; -- Settlement Administrator to mail Notice Packets: 20 days from the date of this order; -- Class Counsel to file Motion for Attorney's fees, costs, and class representative service awards: 35 days before the Final Approval Hearing; -- Deadline for Class Members to opt-out and/or object to the Settlement Agreement: 40 days after mailing of Notice Packets; -- Plaintiffs to file Motion for Final Settlement Approval: 35 days before the Final Approval Hearing; and -- Final Approval Hearing: May 21, 2020, at 1:30 p.m.[CC] SCHARFMAN ORGANIZATION: 2 Rent-Overcharge Suits Certified --------------------------------------------------------- Georgia Kromrei, writing for The Real Deal, reports that as the future of rent overcharge cases hangs in the balance, two major rent-overcharge cases have attained class certification. A lawsuit alleging that landlord The Scharfman Organization overcharged tenants while receiving J-51 tax benefits at a Washington Heights building received class certification last week. Four days later, a similar case alleging that landlord Chestnut Holdings overcharged two tenants and possibly more than a hundred others at a Hamilton Heights building also received class certification. The two lawsuits were brought by the tenant-advocate group Housing Rights Initiative. Aaron Carr, executive director and founder of HRI, said the class certifications in the two cases "couldn't come at a better time." "Whether the fight is in court or in Albany, it's a fight for affordability," Carr said. His group has pursued many such cases in recent years after a pivotal Court of Appeals ruling found that landlords receiving J-51 tax benefits cannot deregulate an apartment when the legal passed a certain threshold and the unit was vacant or occupied by high-income tenants. The 2009 decision allowed the state to calculate rent overcharge amounts based on the most recent legal regulated rent, even if a significant period of time had elapsed. The expanded look-back period and increased potential damages under the Housing and Stability Tenant Protection Act of 2019 has led to a flurry of new cases. The Court of Appeals is set to decide whether the new rent law will be applied to pending cases. In January 2020, it heard blistering arguments from landlord and tenant attorneys. William Hummell, Esq., the attorney who represents Chestnut Holdings, said he had hoped the judge would grant his motion to dismiss the case, "but the laws changed." The units' rents were raised under luxury deregulation, according to Hummel, which was appropriate for the three- to four-bedroom dwellings. "These were substantial apartments, which is not really typical," Hummel said. "They were deregulated because the rents had been very high due to so many bedrooms in a unit." Grimble and LoGuidice is the law firm representing the plaintiffs at 250 Fort Washington. The attorney for the plaintiffs at 310 Convent Avenue, Lucas Ferrara, said he "cries not" for those who took calculated risks and lost. "Maybe ... they should ensure that their real-estate holding companies adhere to the requirements of the law, rather than skirting the rent regulations, and taking advantage of a lack of government oversight, all at the expense of their regulated tenants," Ferrara said. Landlord attorneys have argued that before the courts decided the matter it had been far from clear that properties receiving J-51 benefits had to offer all tenants rent-regulated leases. Luxury deregulation was one of several options previously available to landlords seeking to take apartments out of rent stabilization before the state legislature's drastic overhaul of the rent rules. The attorney representing The Scharfman Organization declined to comment. [GN] SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS: Boian Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Tabita Boian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Schneider Logistics Transloading and Distribution Inc., Defendant, Case No. RIC1905250, (Cal. Super., October 18, 2019), was removed to the US District Court for the Central District of California on January 15, 2020, under Case No. 20-cv-00109. Boian seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages plus an equal amount as liquidated damages, damages from unreasonably delayed payment of wages, redress for missed breaks, reimbursement of business-related expenses, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs and disbursements of this action, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Washington Minimum Wage Act. Schneider Logistics operates a trucking business where Boian worked as a forklift operator. Boian claims to have rendered off-the-clock work without compensation. He also worked through breaks and was not reimbursed for his uniform expense, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins. Esq. Gregory Mauro. Esq. Michael Calvo, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive. Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Tel: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com Schneider is represented by: Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 315-8200 Fax: (310) 315-8210 Email: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com SIZZLING WOK: Fails to Pay Overtime to Sushi Chefs, Nakoulas Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, IOANNIS NAKOULAS, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VICTOR EBADI, THE SIZZLING WOK, INC. d/b/a SIZZLING WOK, POKEBOWL STATION, INC. d/b/a POKEBOWL, POKEWORKS NY2 LLC & POKEWORKS NY3 LLC, d/b/a POKEWORKS, KUREIJI, INC. d/b/a KUREIJI POKE SUSHI, "XYZ CORP." d/b/a UPTOWN POKE, "JOHN DOE", Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00678 (E.D.N.Y., February 6, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Nakoulas was employed as a sushi chef by Defendants from approximately September 2017 through September 2018. According to the complaint, Plaintiff did not receive any overtime pay and spread-of-hours pay for working more than 40 hours per week and working more than 10 hours per day during his employment with Defendants. Regardless of the number of hours he worked in a shift, day or week, he was paid $520.00 per week from the beginning of his employment to the end of April 2018 and $400.00 per week from May 2018 through the end of his employment. Also, Plaintiff was not paid anything for the last five weeks of his employment. In addition, Defendants allegedly failed to provide the Plaintiff with any notices or information regarding the wage and employment; and a time clock, sign sheet, or any other method for employees to track their time worked. Victor Ebadi is a New York resident, owner or part owner and principal of Defendants, and has the power to hire and fire employees, set wages and schedules, and maintain records. Defendants The Sizzling Wok, Inc., Pokebowl Station, Inc., Pokeworks NY2 LLC, Pokeworks NY3 LLC, Kureiji, Inc., and "XYZ Corp." own and operate restaurants within New York with gross revenues in excess of $500,000.00.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patricia Rose Lynch, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS, LLP 31-19 Newtown Avenue, Seventh Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Tel: 718-269-2240 Email: Plynch@saccofillas.com SONIM TECHNOLOGIES: Sterrett Named Lead Plaintiff in Malhotra Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, AJAY MALHOTRA, Plaintiff, v. SONIM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-06416-MMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted David Sterrett's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff. In this action, the Plaintiff alleges on his behalf and that of a putative class, claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Before the Court were motions for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff, filed Dec. 6, 2019, by Sterrett and Lyndon Maither, respectively. By order filed Jan. 7, 2020, as amended Jan. 22, 2020, the Court found Sterrett has incurred the greatest loss and that his claim is typical of those of the putative class members. W ith respect to the question of adequacy, it found the evidence offered in support of Sterrett's reply, specifically, a declaration by Sterrett setting forth his work experience and other background information, read in connection with the showing made in his moving papers, appeared sufficient to show he is an adequate representative. As the Court's finding as to adequacy was based in part on evidence offered with Sterrett's reply, the Court afforded Maither leave to file a surreply to respond. In his surreply, Maither raises three arguments in opposition to Sterrett's appointment. Judge Chesney finds none of those arguments persuasive. First, Maither argues, the evidence offered in support of Sterrett's reply was not submitted in timely fashion and, consequently, should not be considered. As noted, however, the Court afforded Maither an opportunity to respond to that evidence and he has done so. Under the circumstances, the Court finds it appropriate to consider the evidence offered with Sterrett's reply. Second, Maither argues, Sterrett's failure to submit such evidence at the time he filed his initial motion renders that motion "defective," and thus indicates Sterrett may be unable to fairly represent the class. The Juduge, however, finds any such omission does not indicate a lack of adequacy, as no movant, including Maither, submitted with his moving papers a declaration or other evidence setting forth his work history or other biographical background information, thus suggesting it is not the general practice to do so. Lastly, Maither asserts that, for various reasons, he would be a more adequate Lead Plaintiff. Once the plaintiff with the largest financial stake has been identified, however, the Court's task is not to compare that the Plaintiff's various attributes with those of other plaintiffs, but, rather, to determine whether that plaintiff is an adequate representative. Accordingly, the putative class action having been filed in the Northern District of California, Sterrett's having filed a timely motion to be appointed the Lead Plaintiff, Sterrett's having the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class and having otherwise satisfied the requirements of Section 27 of the Securities Act and Rule 23, and Sterrett's seeking, in accordance with Section 27(a)(3)(B)(v) of the Securities Act, approval of his selection of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP to serve as the lead counsel for the putative class, Maither's motion and Malhotra/Zulkifli's motion are denied, and Sterrett's motion is granted. Pursuant to Section 27 of the Securities Act, (i) Sterrett is appointed as the Lead Plaintiff, and (ii) Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP as the lead counsel. As lead counsel, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP will be generally responsible for the overall conduct of the litigation on behalf of the putative class and will have sole authority to do the following: a. Determine and present to the Court and opposing parties the position of the Lead Plaintiff and the putative class members on all matters arising during pretrial proceedings; b. Enter into stipulations with opposing counsel as necessary for the conduct of the litigation; c. Coordinate the initiation and conduct of discovery on behalf of the Lead Plaintiff and the putative class members consistent with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; d. Hire expert witnesses and consultants on behalf of the Lead Plaintiff and the putative class members, as needed to prepare for class certification or trial, and advance other costs that may be reasonable and necessary to the conduct of the litigation; e. Conduct settlement negotiations on behalf of the Lead Plaintiff and the putative class members, and, if appropriate, to enter into a settlement that is fair, reasonable, and adequate on behalf of the putative class members; f. Monitor its activities to ensure that schedules are met and unnecessary expenditures of time and funds are avoided; and g. Perform such other duties as may be incidental to the proper prosecution and coordination of pretrial and trial-related activities on behalf of the Lead Plaintiff and the putative class members or authorized by further order of the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/HrSQdD from Leagle.com. Ajay Malhotra, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley F. Portnoy -- lesleyportnoy@gmail.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lionel Z. Glancy -- LGLANCY@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Charles Henry Linehan -- CLINEHAN@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Pavithra Rajesh -- PRAJESH@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Robert Vincent Prongay -- RPRONGAY@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Sonim Technologies, Inc., Robert Plaschke, James Walker, Maurice Hochschild, Alan Howe, Kenny Young, Susan G. Swenson, John Kneuer & Jeffrey D. Johnson, Defendants, represented by Matthew W. Close -- mclose@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP. David Sterrett, Movant, represented by Richard W. Gonnello, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin Heikali, Faruqi and Faruqi LLP, Katherine M. Lenahan, Faruqi and Farqui, LLP, pro hac vice & Sherief Morsy, Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice. Sean Campbell, Movant, represented by Laurence Matthew Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Lyndon Maither, Movant, represented by Danielle Smith, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Lucas E. Gilmore, Hagens Beman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Reed R. Kathrein, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Andre Ling Bin Zulkifli, Movant, represented by Lesley F. Portnoy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Pavithra Rajesh, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Scott Suit Over Shortened Meal Periods ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHANTRE SCOTT, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., a Texas corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 19CV360906 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Dec. 27, 2019), alleges that the Defendants have failed to provide the Plaintiff and others with proper meal and rest periods and to pay hourly wages, in violation to the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees were provided with shortened meal periods due to interruptions by the Defendant's management team, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee from May 2018 through Oct. 2018. Southwest Airlines is a major American airline headquartered in Dallas, Texas, and is the world's largest low-cost carrier.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. Farrah Grant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com farrah@setarehlaw.com SPECIALTY PARKING: McDonald Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under NYLL -------------------------------------------------------------- Abram McDonald, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Specialty Parking, L.L.C., Case No. 718511/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty.), seeks to recover unpaid wages, including unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages, and compensation for not receiving notices and statements required by the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from April 2015 to July 9, 2019. He was employed by the Defendant as a manual worker performing a variety of functions within this capacity, including parking, driving and handling vehicles throughout his workday, and cleaning cars. The Defendant was engaged in the business of operating parking garage services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: 718 740-1000 Facsimile: 718 740-2000 TEAM DRIVE-AWAY: Fails to Offer Meal & Rest Periods, Haynie Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD HAYNIE, individually, and behalf of all others similarly situated v. TEAM DRIVE-AWAY, INC., a Kansas Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CGC-19-581868 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 27, 2019), alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to provide required meal and rest periods, to pay minimum wage and to pay all wages due to discharged or quitting employees. The Plaintiff contends that he is a former employee of the Defendants and was misclassified as an independent contractor. Team Driveaway is a transport company specializing in trucking services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taras Kick, Esq. Daniel J. Bass, Esq. Roy K. Suh, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC Los Angeles, CA 90049 815 Moraga Drive Telephone: (310) 395-2988 Facsimile: (310) 395-2088 E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com Waniel@kicklawfirm.com Roy@kicklawfirm.com TEVA PARENTERAL: Orosco Seeks Fines for Not Paying All Wages Owed ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER OROSCO, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general v. TEVA PARENTERAL MEDICINES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2019-01120919-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Dec. 27, 2019), seeks to recover penalties under California Labor Code Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004 arising from the Defendants' failure to pay all wages owed, to provide compliant meal periods and rest periods, and to timely paying wages. According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a consistent policy and practice of rounding down the hours worked by Aggrieved Employees. The Defendants rounded the actual time worked and recorded by the Aggrieved Employees, usually down, so that during the course of their employment, Aggrieved Employees were paid less than they would have been paid had they been paid for actual recorded time rather "rounded" time. The Plaintiff was employed by TEVA from March 5, 2012, through January 3, 2019, and occupied several non exempt, hourly positions, including production maintenance tech. Teva Parenteral manufactures, develops, and markets pharmaceutical products. The Company offers generic, capsules, tablets, syrups, injections, and vitamins supplements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Isandra Fernandez, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 TOP CONCOURSE: Pena Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA/NYLL ----------------------------------------------------------------- Edwin Jesus Pena, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. TOP CONCOURSE ELECTRONICS, INC. and DAVID ZANDI, Case No. 1:20-cv-01015 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 5, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law relating to improperly paid wages. The Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to: compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum wage and unpaid wages for overtime work for which he and others did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law; back wages for overtime work for which the Defendants willfully failed to pay overtime premium pay; compensation for the Defendants' violations of the "spread-of-hours" pay under the NYLL; and liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA and the NYLL. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked roughly 52.5 hours per week through each week of his employment with the Defendants. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff any overtime "bonus" for hours worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL. The Defendants also failed to pay the Plaintiff additional hour's pay at the New York minimum wages for each shift that exceeded ten hours, in violation of the NYLL. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a salesman from 2008 until November 15, 2019. The Defendants owned and operated an electronics and home audio store in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 563-9884 Email: dstein@samuelandstein.com TOYOTA MOTOR SALES: Fernandez Sues Over Vehicle's Fuel Tank Defect ------------------------------------------------------------------ Marco Fernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00337 (N.D. Cal. January 15, 2020), seeks monetary relief and punitive damages, all applicable statutory and civil penalties, award of costs and attorneys' fees and such other or further relief for breach of warranty and for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Fernandez owns a 2019 RAV4 Hybrid and claims that it contains a defect that prevents the fuel tank from filling to the capacity, thus significantly reducing the mileage range of the vehicle. Toyota Motor Sales, USA distributes Toyota vehicles in the United States.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Dustin L. Schubert, Esq. Kathryn Y. Mccauley, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Email: rschubert@sjk.law dschubert@sjk.law kmccauley@sjk.law TRIUS TRUCKING: Scheduling Conf. in Mondrian Continued to March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case AUGUSTUS MONDRIAN, and RHONDA JONES, individuals, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRIUS TRUCKING, INC., a California Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-CV-00884-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Alberto of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California continued the Scheduling Conference scheduled for Jan. 28, 2020 to March 31, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 7 (SKO). The parties submitted their Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order to continue the Scheduling Conference scheduled for Jan. 28, 2020. On June 27, 2019, the Defendant filed a Notice of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court in the Court. The parties' first appearance before the Court was initially set for Oct. 29, 2019. On Oct. 21, 2019, the parties notified the Court that they reached a class-wide settlement of the matter and were finalizing the terms of a long-form settlement agreement, after which the Plaintiffs intended to file a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. They required more time than initially anticipated to finalize the terms of the long-form settlement agreement. As of the date of the filing, the parties have circulated a final long-form settlement agreement for signature, and anticipate the filing of a motion for preliminary approval of class settlement within 60 days of Jan. 21, 2020. Therefore, subject to the Court's approval, the parties stipulated and agreed, Judge Magistrate Judge Alberto granted, to continue the Scheduling Conference set before the Court on Jan. 28, 2020 for 60 days, or to any date thereafter that is convenient for the Court. The parties will file their joint scheduling report by no later than March 24, 2020. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/cJHVvk from Leagle.com. Augustus Mondrian, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated & Rhonda Jones, an individual, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Norman Blumenthal -- NORM@BAMLAWCA.COM -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, LLP, Aparajit Bhowmik -- aj@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Kyle R. Nordrehaug -- KYLE@BAMLAWCA.COM -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug and Bhowmik, Ruchira Piya Mukherjee -- piya@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik & Victoria Bree Rivapalacio -- victoria@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. Trius Trucking, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by Matthew Ernest Farmer -- mfarmer@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Irene Vera Fitzgerald -- ifitzgerald@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Vanessa M. Cohn -- vcohn@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson. TYSON FOODS: Lucero Class Suit Removed to District of New Mexico ---------------------------------------------------------------- JBS USA Food Company removed the case captioned as MICHAEL LUCERO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. TYSON FOODS, INC., CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS, CORP., JBS USA FOOD COMPANY, NATIONAL BEEF PACKING COMPANY, LLC, Case No. D-1329-CV-2020-00044 (Filed Jan. 7, 2020), from the New Mexico District Court, Thirteenth Judicial District, County of Sandoval, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on Feb. 5, 2020. The District of New Mexico Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00106-JHR-KK to the proceeding. The complaint asserts claims relating to the cattle and beef markets, focusing in particular on the labeling of beef products. The Plaintiff alleges that imported live cattle and beef are deceptively labeled and marketed. JBS USA is a leading processor of beef, pork and prepared foods in the U.S. and Canada. Tyson Foods, Inc. is an American multinational corporation based in Springdale, Arkansas, that operates in the food industry. Tyson Foods is the world's second largest processor and marketer of chicken, beef, and pork after JBS.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: A. Blair Dunn, Esq. WESTERN AGRICULTURE, RESOURCE AND BUSINESS ADVOCATES, LLP 400 Gold Ave. SW, Suite 1000 Albuquerque, NM 87102 E-mail: abdunn@ablairdunn-esq.com Defendant JBS USA Food Company is represented by: Andrew G. Schultz, Esq. RODEY, DICKASON, SLOAN, AKIN & ROBB, P.A. P.O. Box 1888 Albuquerque, NM 87103 Telephone: (505) 765-5900 Facsimile: (505) 768-7395 E-mail: aschultz@rodey.com UNITED SALES: Mendoza Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Truck Drivers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Mendoza, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. UNITED SALES U.S.A. CORP., SOLOMON ENDZWEIG, and ABRAHAM GOLDBERGER, Case No. 1:20-cv-00659 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 5, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law to recover for truck drivers alleged unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, unlawful deductions, and damages for unlawful termination and retaliation. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation for the Plaintiff and his similarly situated co-workers, who have worked for the Defendants in New York in excess of 40 hours per week as truck drivers driving vehicles. He alleges that the Defendants wrongfully misclassified him and his similarly situated co-workers as independent contractors when in fact, under federal and state wage laws, they should have been treated as employees. Mr. Mendoza was employed by the Defendants as a truck driver and warehouse employee. He also alleges that the Defendants failed to provide wage statements and notice of wage rate under the NYLL; failed to pay employees spread-of-hours compensation of one hour's pay at the minimum wage for each day in which their workday spanned more than 10 hours; and have made unlawful deductions from employees' wages to cover uniform and hotel expenses. United Sales U.S.A. Corp. owns and operates a janitorial supply company located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Molly Smithsimon, Esq. Bradford D. Conover, Esq. CONOVER LAW OFFICES 345 Seventh Avenue, 21st Floor New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 588-9080 Email: molly@conoverlaw.com brad@conoverlaw.com UNITED STATES: Brown Sues TSA Over Cash Confiscation at Airport --------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Brown and August Terrence Rolin, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Transportation Security Administration (TSA), David P. Pekoske, Administrator, TSA, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Uttam Dhillon, Acting Administrator, DEA, "Steve" (last name unknown), Agent, DEA and the United States of America, Defendants, Case 20-cv-00064 (W.D. Pa., January 15, 2020), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and recovery of seized cash at the Pittsburgh airport on August 26, 2019. Brown was travelling from Pittsburg to Massachusetts when the TSA seized the $82,373 in cash that she was carrying. The DEA has already taken actions to permanently keep the money using civil forfeiture. August Terrence Rolin is Brown's father and it was his money that she was carrying, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Alban, Esq. Jaba Tsitsuashvili, Esq. Richard Hoover, Esq. INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 901 North Glebe Rd., Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22203 Tel: (703) 682-9320 Fax: (703) 682-9321 Email: dalban@ij.org jtsitsuashvili@ij.org rhoover@ij.org UPS SUPPLY CHAIN: Ayala Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Eric Ayala, individually and on behalf of other members of the public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., UPS Supply Chain Solutions General Services, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1937490, (Cal. Super., December 12, 2019), was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on January 15, 2020, under Case No. 20-cv-00117. Ayala seeks redress for Defendants' failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide itemized wage statements; interest thereon at the statutory rate; actual damages; all wages due terminated employees; costs of suit; prejudgment interest and such other and further relief pursuant to the California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Spivak, Esq. Carl Joseph Kaplan, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 16530 Ventura Blvd, Suite 312 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 582-3086 Facsimile: (818) 582-2561 Email: david@spivaklaw.com carl@spivaklaw.com UPS is represented by: Elizabeth A. Brown, Esq. Jennifer Svanfeldt, Esq. Matthew W. Morris, Esq. GBG LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 3330 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 358-2810 Facsimile: (213) 995-6382 Email: lisabrown@gbgllp.com jensvanfeldt@gbgllp.com mattmorris@gbgllp.com VERIZON NY: Beaton Sues over Unpaid Wages, Racial Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- RAWLE BEATON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERIZON NEW YORK INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-0672 (E.D.N.Y., February 6, 2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, from January 2016 until April 4, 2019, Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an escort of Defendants' technicians by accompanying and providing them physical security during service calls. Also, he was required to report to work at 7:30 a.m. to clean the sidewalk in front of his workplace, but was not allowed to clock in prior to the start of his "official" shift at 8:30 a.m.; and instructed to write down only his "official" work hours in the log book provided by Defendant. Plaintiff claims that he never received any form of additional compensation despite routinely working over 40 hours per week throughout his employment with Defendant. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to keep accurate payroll records and provide Plaintiff and others similarly situated with fraudulent wage statements. Plaintiff also seeks damages and other relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and New York City Administrative Code for creating and fostering a hostile work environment through persistent racial discrimination against Plaintiff, and for retaliatory termination in response to his complaints about the discrimination and other abuse Plaintiff has experienced at the hands of a co-worker. Verizon New York Inc. is a New York-based subsidiary of the Verizon Communications Inc., an international provider of communication services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor Tel: (212) 465-1180 VERTILUX LIMITED: Suros Seeks $15K in Damages for Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- MERCEDES SUROS and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. VERTILUX LIMITED, VERTILUX MANAGEMENT, INC., JOSE GARCIA and BERNARDO MENDEZ, Case No. 100889408 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., Dec. 27, 2019), seeks to recover damages in excess of $15,000 under the Fair Labor Standards over unpaid overtime wages. The Defendants intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff overtime wages as the Defendants knew of the overtime requirements of the FLSA and recklessly failed to investigate whether their payroll practices were in accordance with the FLSA, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a customer service representative from Nov. 2016 through Nov. 22, 2019. Vertilux Limited manufactures home furnishings and housewares.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alberto Naranjo, Esq. AN LAW FIRM, P.A. 7900 Oak Ln., No. 400 Miami Lakes, FL Telephone: 305 942 8070 E-mail: AN@ANLawFirm.com WAWA INC: Faces Muller Suit in Eastern District of Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wawa, Inc. The case is captioned as JOSEPH MULLER, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. WAWA, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-06142-WB (E.D. Pa., Dec. 26, 2019). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone. The suit involves fraud-related issues. Wawa, Inc. is an American chain of convenience stores and gas stations located along the East Coast of the United States, operating in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sherrie R. Savett, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-5715 E-mail: ssavett@bm.net [*] Hagens Berman Joins Sugarcane Burning "Black Snow" Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- National heavyweight law firm Hagens Berman has joined a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of Florida residents subjected to toxic ash and air pollution -- often referred to as "black snow" -- produced by outdated and environmentally unsound methods of harvesting sugarcane implemented by Florida's multibillion dollar sugar industry. The law firm has a long history of opposing major corporations and well-established industries for acts of fraud, negligence and other wrongdoing, returning record-breaking settlements to the public. "For half of the year, Florida's sugar industry is subjecting the people of Florida to toxic air and black snow ash solely for the sake of higher profits," said Steve Berman, co-founder and managing partner of Hagens Berman. "These major food corporations are fully willing to degrade the environment and the health and wellbeing of these communities to sweeten their own pot, and we are fully willing to hold them accountable for their actions, which we believe violate federal and state laws." Alternative, environmentally friendly harvesting methods (green harvesting) not only exist, but have been in use for more than three decades in many parts of the world -- even resulting in greater yields from sugarcane fields in Brazil, where green harvesting has been mandated for over ten years. Still, defendants claim pre-harvest burning allows them to make more money, despite studies demonstrating green harvesting's ability to actually improve profits and yields after a brief adjustment period, and better preserve soil for future crops. "Hagens Berman began 25 years ago taking on Big Tobacco for the public nuisance it created, and we intend to hold Big Sugar accountable for the public nuisance of black snow," he added. The suit claims that the hazardous "black snow" produced by the Florida sugar industry covers and discolors residents' property, infiltrates their homes and has lasting health effects, including respiratory conditions such as asthma. If you live in an area of Florida affected by toxic smoke and ash created by the sugar industry's sugarcane burning, find out your rights. The lawsuit seeks reimbursement for the Florida sugar industry's actions, which have damaged the health and property of local residents, as well as repayment for other economic losses and nuisance. The lawsuit also seeks an injunction banning the archaic practice of pre-harvest burning, as well as a medical monitoring program financed by the suit's defendants. BIG SUGAR'S BLACK SNOW Attorneys say the black snow is known to travel for miles from the area of the burn, and discolors cars, homes, and office buildings. Many local homes must be pressure washed annually, and residents' quality of life is greatly diminished. It affects the communities south and east of Lake Okeechobee and the towns of Belle Glade, South Bay, Pahokee, Clewiston, Moore Haven and others for six months out of the year, according to the complaint. Florida is home to roughly 400,000 acres of sugarcane fields, about 90 percent of which are located in western Palm Beach County. A review of the annual burn maps demonstrates the burns disproportionately affect poorer communities, unable to confront the corporations responsible, the suit states. Defendants' pre-harvest burning causes pollutants, including smoke, particulate matter, dioxins, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, elemental carbon and organic carbon, to migrate onto and contaminate residents' property, and exposes residents to these pollutants for extended periods of time, attorneys say. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, many of these pollutants are possible human carcinogens. Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against Florida's sugar industry. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP – http://wwww.hbsslaw.com-- is a consumer-rights class-action law firm with nine offices across the country. The firm's tenacious drive for plaintiffs' rights has earned it numerous national accolades, awards and titles of "Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm," and MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. [GN] [*] Top Wage-and-Hour Class Action Settlement Values Rise in 2019 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Trimarchi, writing for Bloomberg Tax, reports that the value of the 10 leading wage and hour class action settlements in 2019 was $449.1 million, up about 77% from $253 million in 2018, a law firm said Jan. 10. The settlement values for all employment-related class action categories totaled $1.34 billion in 2019, compared with $1.32 billion in 2018, Seyfarth Shaw said in its 16th annual report, which analyzed 1,467 class action rulings on a circuit-by-circuit and state-by-state basis. By comparison, settlements totaled a record-high $2.72 billion in 2017, $1.75 billion in 2016, $2.48 billion in 2015, and $1.85 billion in 2014, the Chicago law firm said in a summary of its "Workplace Class Action Litigation Report." The top 10 settlements in terms of value involved minimum wage, overtime, meal and rest breaks, worker status, employment benefits, and pre-shift duties. The number of wage and hour lawsuits filed in federal courts fell for the fourth consecutive year, with filings in 2019 at the lowest level in the past decade, the report said. Of the 271 wage and hour certification decisions, plaintiffs won 199 or 245 conditional rulings and lost 15 of 26 decertification rulings. In 2018, there were 273 wage and hour certification decisions, with employees winning 196 of 248 conditional certification rulings and losing 13 of 25 decertification rulings. "The cases decided in 2019 foreshadow the direction of class action litigation in the coming year," said the report's author, Gerald L. Maatman Jr., co-chairman of Seyfarth Shaw's class action litigation practice group. "One certain conclusion is that employment law class action and collective action litigation is becoming ever more sophisticated and will continue to be a source of significant financial exposure to employers well into the future." The Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (138 S. Ct. 1612) strongly influenced workplace class actions, the report said. Employers may enforce arbitration agreements signed by workers, even if they prohibit class-action claims, the high court said. The report called the ruling "transformative" and said it was one of the most important workplace class action rulings in the past two decades. "It is already having a profound impact on the prosecution and defense of workplace class action litigation, and in the long run, Epic Systems may well shift class action litigation dynamics in critical ways," the report said. The 2019 lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act totaled 6,780, compared with 7,494 in 2018. Although the filing of FLSA class action lawsuits have been falling since 2016, the number of cases filed outpaced other types of employment-related filings, the report said. "The fact of the third annual decrease in FLSA lawsuit filings in 17 years is noteworthy in and of itself," the report said. "Most likely, it reflects that Epic Systems has led the plaintiffs' bar to forego filing various lawsuits and proceeding directly to arbitration." The Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes (564 U.S. 338) also had an effect on class action litigation, the report said. A proposed class of women claimed that the retail company violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by discriminating against them in pay and promotions nationwide. In denying certification to the class, the high court said that the employees did not present a common issue of law or fact as required for class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. "The cases decided in 2019 foreshadow the direction of class action litigation in the coming year," Maatman said. "One certain conclusion is that employment law class action and collective action litigation is becoming ever more sophisticated and will continue to be a source of significant financial exposure to employers well into the future." [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 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 ***