/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 ***