/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200225.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, February 25, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 40
Headlines
ACCREDITED BUSINESS: Terry Fabricant Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Robinson Class Action
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Brown Class Action
ALLERGAN INC: FA Sues Over Defective BIOCELL Breast Implants
ALLIED TECHNICAL: Ludlum Files FLSA Suit in Georgia
AMAG INC: Barnes Sues Over False Marketing of Makena's Efficacy
AMERICAN DIVERSIFIED: Fabricant Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
AMERICAN GAMING: Katt Files Suit under ADA in Colorado
AMERICAN HONDA: Court Transfers Rojas Action to C.D. Cal.
AMOUR VERT: Taylor Alleges Violation under ADA in Georgia
APPLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Product Misrepresentation Suit
B.C. SURF: Taylor Alleges Violation Under Disabilities Act
BEYOND MEAT: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
BEYOND MEAT: Rosen Law Notes of March 30 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
BEYOND MEAT: Schall Law Announces Filing of Class Action
BIOAMBER: Rosen Law Announces Proposed Class Action Settlement
BURGER KING: Vegan Files Class Action Over Impossible Whopper
COLONIAL FIRST: Faces Insurance Class Action in Victoria
CPO COMMERCE: Cruz Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
CRAIG SWAPP: Firm Agrees to $950K Settlement Over Crash Reports
CREDIT LOAN: Uses Illegal Telemarketing Strategy, Alsuliman Says
CURA CANNABIS: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Vape Cartridges
CUSTOM FURNITURE: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
DEALERS' CHOICE: Bridges Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
DESERT LAKE GROUP: Olson Suit Transferred to Arkansas Dist. Ct.
DETAIL GARAGE: Cardinal Investments Sue Over Franchise Fraud
DIRECT LIQUIDATION: Cruz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
DOUGLAS EMMETT: Faces Negligence Class Action After Fire Death
DURHAM & DURHAM: Lorenzo Files FDCPA Suit in Florida
EVENFLO COMPANY: Sapeika Files Suit in Ohio
FACEBOOK INC: Agrees to Pay $550MM in Illinois Over Face-Tagging
FACEBOOK INC: Gibbs Law Announces $40M Settlement Over Ad Metrics
FACEBOOK INC: Settlement Watershed Moment for Biometric Privacy
FACEBOOK INC: Settles Facial Recognition Class Action for $800MM
FACEBOOK INC: Workers With Arbitration Deals Not Entitled to Notice
FAIRWAY GROUP: Village Buying All Assets for $70 Million Cash
FEDERAL INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Class Suit by Mesa Laboratories
FIG CAPITAL LLC: Abante Rooter Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
FRESH HARVEST: Court OKs $1MM Amended Settlement in Olivo Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Casey Files Class Suit in California
GETSWIFT: Acquires Stake in Logo for EUR5.5MM Amid Class Action
GOOGLE: AGs, Class Action Watchdog Protest Cy Pres-Only Settlement
GREEN SOLUTION: Katt Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
GREEN STAR CAPITAL: Faces Telemarketing Suit From Abante Rooter
H&M: Court Tosses Summary Judgment Bids in Lao Case
HENIG FURS: Taylor Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
HONEYWELL INT'L: Judge Tosses Leaky Water Heater Class Action
HP INC: Electrical Workers Pension Fund Files Suit in California
INTERACTIVE MARKETING: Faces Espinosa Suit Over Unpaid Wages
INVALUABLE LLC: Cruz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
J.P. MORGAN: Taschler Sues Over Illegal Phone Calls
JUUL LABS: Cooper Product Liability Suit Removed to N.D. Texas
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Erceg Sues over Recording of Telephone Calls
LIVINGSOCIAL LLC: Cruz Files Suit under ADA in New York
LLOYD & MCDANIEL: Hurtado Files Suit in Florida
LYNX PRESSURE: Shortchanges Workers' Overtime Pay, Bradshaw Says
MDL 2420: Gordon's Bid for Unredacted Bid Submission Denied
MDL 2792: Morgan's Bid to Strike Expert Declaration Tossed
MIDLAND CREDIT: Lorenzo Files Suit in Florida
MONCTON HOSPITAL: Lawyer Prepping Class Suit Over Induced Labor
MYERS: Shareholders Fight Ruling in Disclosure Class Action
NESTLE USA: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Over Trans Fat Denied
NOBLES COUNTY, MN: Sheriff Can't Detain Prisoners for ICE
NYGARD INC: Faces Class Suit over Sexual Assault Allegations
OPERA LTD: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of March 24 Deadline
OUT TECH: Masri Asserts Violation under FDCPA in New York
OUTDOOR VOICES: Cruz Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
PAPA JOHN'S: Hubbard Case Stayed Pending Ruling in Durling
PHIA GROUP: Seeks Second Circuit Review of Order in Weyant Suit
PIZZA PROPERTIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Drivers, Buck Says
PNC BANK: Class Certification Bid in Kazi Suit Granted in Part
PORT PIZZA: Fails to Distribute Employees' Tips, Gee et al Allege
PROGREXION TELESERVICES: Born Files FLSA Suit in Utah
QUDIAN INC: Bellingham Hits Share Drop from Bad Loans
RAUSCH STURM: Choi Asserts Breach of FDCPA
RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Guzmman Alleges Violation under FDCPA
SET ENTERPRISES: Taylor Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool
SHOEBACCA LTD: Cruz Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
SIRIUS XM: North Texas Man Wins Class Action Lawsuit
SIRIUSXM: Buchanan Plaintiff Gets Only $10,000 From TCPA Settlement
STEAM GENERATING: Miller Moves to Compel Compliance With Subpoena
STOCKX LLC: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
SUMMER INFANT (USA): Cruz Suit Asserts Breach of ADA
TELARIA INC: Sabatini Balks at Rubicon Merger Deal
TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT: Diller Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
TYSON FOODS: Non-Supervisory Staff Wage-Fixing Class Suit Ongoing
TYSON FOODS: PH Supreme Court Review on Suit v. Hillshire Pending
UNITED STATES: Court Denies Reconsideration Bid in CAPPS Case
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification Bid in Millman Denied
UNIV. OF SOUTHERN CALIF: Sexual Health Doctor Surrenders License
VUORI INC: Cruz Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
WAWA INC: Greater Chautauqua Files Suit in Pennsylvania
WAWA INC: Insight Credit Files Suit in Pennsylvania
WESTPAC BANKING: Faces Another Class Action Over Money Laundering
WESTPAC BANKING: Rosen Law Files Class Action
WESTPAC BANKING: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
WILLIAMS ALEXANDER: Hovance Files FDCPA Suit in New York
ZAGER FUCHS: Class Cert. Bid in Zangara Suit Denied
[*] Budtender Lawsuit Claims Workers Are Paid in Weed
[*] Combustible Cladding Case Invite Unsure Building Owners to Join
[*] FeganScott's Founding Partner Named 2020 Illinois Super Lawyer
[*] Professor Calls for Change in Fee Formula for Class Defendants
[*] Securities Class-Action Lawsuits Hit New Record in 2019
[*] Victoria Set to Introduce U.S.-Style Class Action Fees
[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 4
*********
ACCREDITED BUSINESS: Terry Fabricant Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. ACCREDITED BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INC.; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01486
(C.D. Cal., February 13, 2020) alleges that the Defendant has made
numerous solicitation calls and text messages to Plaintiff in an
attempt to solicit its services.
The Plaintiff and the class members were harmed by the acts of
Defendants by illegally contacting them via their telephones with
the use of an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial
or prerecorded voice.
Accredited Business Solutions Inc. is a business financing company
in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: 877-206-4741
Facsimile: 866-633-0228
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Robinson Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by T'Lani
Robinson.
On April 3, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
T'Lani Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc., in the
Northern District of Georgia.
The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate
classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the
State of Georgia who purchased or paid for and received any part of
a DeVry University program.
The plaintiffs claim that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate
and assert claims of breach of contract, negligent
misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory relief.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and
statutory penalties and damages as allowed by law, including
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest disgorgement, restitution,
injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 31, 2019.
On November, 25, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the claims for
breach of fiduciary duty and conversion with prejudice. The court
dismissed the claims for negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment
without prejudice, ordering plaintiffs' to file an amended
class-action complaint within fourteen days of the order.
The court allowed the claims for breach of contract and declaratory
relief to proceed.
On December 9, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended class-action
complaint. On December 23, 2019, defendants filed their answer to
the amended class action complaint.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Brown Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that discovery is
ongoing in the class action suit initiated by Robby Brown.
On March 29, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Robby Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc., in the
Western District of Missouri.
The complaint was filed on behalf of himself and two separate
classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the
State of Missouri and who purchased or paid for and received any
part of a DeVry University program. The plaintiffs claim that
defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry
University's graduate employment rate and assert claims of breach
of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary
duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and
statutory penalties and damages as allowed by law, including
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest disgorgement, restitution,
injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 31, 2019.
On October 9, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss. The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims for
unjust enrichment and conversion, allowing the remaining claims to
proceed. On October 29, 2019, Defendants filed an answer to the
complaint.
The parties are in the initial stages of discovery.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.
ALLERGAN INC: FA Sues Over Defective BIOCELL Breast Implants
------------------------------------------------------------
F.A., S.B., K.B., M.C., M.D.E., A.F., M.G., T.K., C.L, C.M.,
G.A.M., M.M.P., M.S., and A.V., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ALLERGAN, INC. f/k/a INAMED
CORPORATION; ALLERGAN USA, INC.; ALLERGAN plc; and DOES 1 through
20, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01760 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 4, 2019), is
brought against Allergan for manufacturing and selling BIOCELL
textured breast implants and tissue expanders that expose women to
a higher risk of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell
lymphoma, a deadly cancer of the immune system.
Although it knew of the increased risks of BIA-ALCL as early as
2011, Allergan failed to warn women considering their implants, the
Plaintiffs allege. They add that although Allergan has now issued a
recall pursuant to FDA's directive, it refuses to take full
responsibility and refuses to cover the significant costs
associated with removal and replacement of the defective devices
and medical monitoring, among other damages.
The Plaintiffs contend that Allergan has refused to pay for the
removal of the recalled products or any of the consequences of
additional surgery that women who choose removal will have to
undergo, or for medical monitoring of the substantially increased
risk of BIA-ALCL that all women implanted with the devices have
been subjected to.
The Plaintiffs bring this Action to make Allergan take
responsibility for exposing women to a higher risk of BIA-ALCL and
to make all women implanted with these defective devices whole by
covering all costs associated with the removal, replacement, and
recovery, medical monitoring, and all damages arising out of the
sale and implanting of these defective devices.
The Plaintiffs received Allergan textured breast implants.
ALLERGAN plc is a publicly traded corporation headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Theodore Maya, Esq.
Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
10728 Lindbrook Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
rglezakos@ahdootwolfson.com
ALLIED TECHNICAL: Ludlum Files FLSA Suit in Georgia
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Technical
Resources, Inc. The case is styled as Audrey Ludlum, individually
and For Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Allied Technical
Resources, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00025-JRH-BKE (S.D.
Ga., Feb. 19, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Fair
Standards filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Allied Technical Resources, Inc. provides professional resources to
the Power and Industrial Services Industries. Allied was founded in
1988 and has staffed over 25,000 positions during that period.
Allied also has affiliated companies that provide field resources
and payroll services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Troy A. Lanier, Esq.
Troy A. Lanier, PC
430 Ellis Street
Augusta, GA 30901
Tel: (706) 823-6800
Fax: (706) 724-6064
Email: tlanier@tlanierlaw.com
AMAG INC: Barnes Sues Over False Marketing of Makena's Efficacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Jo Barnes, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. AMAG, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-01771 (W.D. Mo., Nov. 11,
2019), arises from the marketing, sale, and manufacturing of the
drug Makena, which the Defendant misrepresented as being effective
at preventing preterm births, in violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act.
Makena, a hydroxyprogesterone caproate, was and is marketed as an
effective hormonal medication that reduces the risks for pregnant
mothers of giving birth before term. AMAG's marketing targets
mothers with testimonials of how effective its product was for
other moms. Makena's patient education brochure extols Makena as an
effective drug for mothers who had a previous preterm birth and are
at risk for another preterm delivery.
The front of the brochure reads "HELP GIVE YOUR BABY MORE TIME TO
DEVLEOP." The brochure tells mothers that "Makena helps give babies
more time to develop" and ends by reminding mothers that "Every
week counts when you're pregnant."
In connection with the sale and advertisement of Makena, the
Defendant misrepresented Makena's effectiveness at preventing
preterm births, the Plaintiff alleges. She contends that the
Defendant's statements that Makena was effective in reducing
preterm births constitute "deception, fraud, false promise,
misrepresentation, unfair practice or the concealment, suppression,
or omission of any material fact," in violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act.
The Plaintiff and Class members were injured because they purchased
a product, they otherwise would not have purchased, due to
Defendant's falsities, misrepresentations and/or omissions, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff was prescribed, purchased, and injected with Makena.
AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Waltham, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard M. Paul, III, Esq.
Ashlea Schwarz, Esq.
Sean Cooper, Esq.
PAUL LLP
601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64106
Phone: 816-984-8100
Email: Rick@PaulLLP.com
ashlea@paulllp.com
Sean@PaulLLP.com
AMERICAN DIVERSIFIED: Fabricant Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Diversified Energy, LLC and Does
1 through 10, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00638 (C.D. Cal., January
22, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble
damages and all other relief for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
American Diversified Energy is an energy marketing company.
Fabricant claims to have received auto-dialed telemarketing calls
from American Diversified on his phone despite being registered in
the National Do-Not-Call registry. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
AMERICAN GAMING: Katt Files Suit under ADA in Colorado
------------------------------------------------------
American Gaming Group LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as David Katt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. American Gaming Group LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00421-NRN (D. Colo., Feb. 19, 2020).
American Gaming Group LLC's business is categorized under Game
Services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
Marcus & Zelman, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Tel: (732) 695-3282
Email: ari@marcuszelman.com
AMERICAN HONDA: Court Transfers Rojas Action to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Transfer
the case captioned PATRICK ROJAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.,
INC., and HONDA NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
19-21721-CIV-SMITH (S.D. Fla.).
This matter is before the Court on Defendants American Honda Motor
Co., Inc. and Honda North America, Inc.'s Motion to Transfer, or,
in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action
Complaint.
Plaintiff filed the instant action on May 5, 2019. Plaintiff's
claims are based on alleged defects in 2016-2018 Honda Civic
vehicles equipped with CVT transmissions. The alleged defects cause
the vehicles to unintentionally roll away when the driver believes
that the car is in park. The defects alleged in Plaintiff's
complaint are that the vehicles fail to provide notice to drivers
that the vehicle is out-of-gear, fail to activate the Electric
Parking Brake in certain situations, and that the shifter is
defective. Plaintiff seeks certification of a nationwide class and
a Florida sub-class.
Prior to the filing of the instant action, two other similar
putative class-actions were filed, one in the Central District of
California and one in the Eastern District of New York. Floyd v.
American Honda Motor Co., Case No. 2:17-CV-08744, was filed in the
Central District of California on December 4, 2017. Several of the
plaintiff's attorneys in Floyd are also Plaintiff's counsel in this
matter. The complaint in Floyd also alleges defects in 2016-2018
Honda Civics with CVT transmissions because the vehicles fail to
provide notice to drivers that the vehicle is out-of-gear, fail to
activate the Electric Parking Brake in certain situations, and are,
therefore, prone to unintentionally roll away. The claims in Floyd,
like the claims in the instant action, include breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranties, violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and equitable injunctive and
declaratory relief on behalf of a national class of plaintiffs.
Floyd also brings claims under Tennessee, Wisconsin, and California
statutes on behalf of state-specific sub-classes. Tenzyk v.
American Honda Motor Co., Case No. 18-CV-6121, was filed on
November 1, 2018 in the Eastern District of New York, alleging the
same defect with the 2016-2018 Honda Civics and the same claims on
behalf of a nationwide class, as well as New York statutory claims
on behalf of a New York sub-class. The same plaintiff's attorneys
also filed the Tenzyk case.
On June 13, 2018, the California district judge granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss because the Floyd plaintiffs failed
to comply with the requirements of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Because the court's supplemental jurisdiction over the state law
claims was based on its jurisdiction over the Magnuson-Moss claims,
the Floyd court found that it had no jurisdiction over the state
law claims. The Floyd plaintiffs then appealed the dismissal
instead of filing an amended complaint. The appeal was set for oral
arguments before the Ninth Circuit on December 11, 2019. Despite
the dismissal of Floyd, on November 14, 2019, the New York district
judge granted Defendants' motion to transfer Tenzyk to the Central
District of California.
Section 1404(a) states: For the convenience of parties and
witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may
transfer any civil action to any other district or division where
it might have been brought or to any district or division to which
all parties have consented. The first-filed rule favors the forum
of the first-filed suit when there are multiple actions involving
similar claims and parties.
The First-Filed Rule Favors Transfer
Defendants argue that the first-filed rule favors transfer of this
matter to the district court in California.
Under the first-filed rule, where two actions involving overlapping
issues and parties are pending in two federal courts, there is a
strong presumption across the federal circuits that favors the
forum of the first-filed suit.
In his response, Plaintiff does not contest that the three factors
weigh in favor of the California forum, instead, Plaintiff argues
that compelling circumstances exist to avoid application of the
first-filed rule. Specifically, Plaintiff maintains that because
the Floyd court has already held that it lacked jurisdiction,
transfer to California, a court which does not have jurisdiction,
would be improper. Plaintiff also argues that transferring the case
to California would result in forum shopping, which the first-filed
rule is meant to discourage.
Plaintiff, however, has misinterpreted the decision in Floyd. The
Floyd court held that plaintiffs failed to meet the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act's pleading requirements and, thus, it lacked
jurisdiction over the Magnuson-Moss claim. Floyd, 2018 WL 6118582
at *4. The Floyd court then dismissed the entire case because it
found that it lacked supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining
claims because supplemental jurisdiction was based on the
Magnuson-Moss claim.
The Floyd court never addressed the issue of whether it had
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The Floyd
plaintiffs appealed the decision before the district court had an
opportunity to address the issue of CAFA jurisdiction. Further, the
Floyd court did not foreclose jurisdiction under Magnuson-Moss; it
simply found that the Floyd plaintiffs had failed to adequately
plead jurisdiction under Magnuson-Moss. Thus, contrary to
Plaintiff's assertion, he is not necessarily foreclosed from filing
suit in the California district court. The New York district court
similarly noted: the Floyd court's decision contemplated that the
court could exercise jurisdiction over claims in a class action if
Plaintiffs met certain requirements.
Consequently, Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing that
compelling reasons exist for not applying the first-filed rule. The
first-filed rule favors transfer.
This Action Could Have Been Brought in the Central District of
California
An action might have been brought in a transferee district if that
district has subject matter jurisdiction over the action, venue is
proper, and the parties are amenable to service of process in the
transferee forum.
The Central District of California would have subject matter
jurisdiction over a case brought pursuant to CAFA, as well as a
case properly brought under Magnuson-Moss. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1391, venue would be proper in the Central District of
California because Plaintiff alleges that both Defendants have
their principal place of business in Torrance, California. Thus,
Defendants would also be amenable to service of process in the
Central District of California.
Consequently, this case could have been brought in the Central
District of California.
The Convenience of the Parties and the Interests of Justice Favor
Transfer
To determine whether the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and the interest of justice favor transfer, a court considers: (1)
the convenience of the witnesses (2) the location of relevant
documents and the relative ease of access to sources of proof (3)
the convenience of the parties (4) the locus of operative facts (5)
the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling
witnesses (6) the relative means of the parties (7) a forum's
familiarity with the governing law (8) the weight accorded a
plaintiff's choice of forum and (9) trial efficiency and the
interests of justice, based on the totality of the circumstances.
These factors weigh in favor of transfer to the Central District of
California.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff is a resident of California
and both Defendants have their principal place of business in
Torrance, California. Thus, the third factor, convenience of the
parties favors California. Based on the allegations in the
complaint, it is likely that the majority of discovery and
documents will be produced by Defendants. Thus, the second factor,
the location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access
to sources of proof favors California. Similarly, the first factor,
convenience of the witnesses, favors California because, given the
nature of the claims, the majority of witnesses are likely to be
associated with Defendants, who are located in California. The
nature of the claims indicates that the locus of the operative
facts is where Defendants are. Thus, the fourth factor favors
California.
At this early stage of the proceedings, the fifth factor, the
availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling
witnesses does not seem to favor either forum because, other than
Plaintiff and employees of Defendants, it is not clear who the
witnesses would be. While Defendants clearly have far greater means
than Plaintiff, Plaintiff is actually a resident of California.
Thus, the sixth factor, the relative means of the parties favors
California. While the seventh factor, a forum's familiarity with
the governing law may appear to favor Florida because of the many
state law claims, a California court is capable of applying another
state's law.
The eighth factor, the plaintiff's choice of forum is accorded less
weight when a plaintiff does not reside in his chosen forum. The
final factor, trial efficiency and the interests of justice, based
on the totality of the circumstances, favors transfer to
California.
The Court finds that the convenience of the parties and the
interests of justice favor transfer to the Central District of
California.
Accordingly, the Motion to Transfer is GRANTED, rules the Court.
A full-text copy of the District Court's November 25, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/rjrkzkj from Leagle.com.
Patrick Rojas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Scott Crissman Harris -
scott@wbmllp.com - Whitfield Bryson, Mason, Bradley K. King -
bking@ahdootwolfson.com - Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC, pro hac vice &
Rachel Lynn Soffin , Greg Coleman Law PC, 800 S. Gay Street, Suite
1100, Knoxville, TN 37929
American Honda Motor Co. Inc., a California Corporation & Honda
North America, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendants,
represented by Eric Y. Kizirian - Eric.Kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com -
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith, LLP, pro hac vice & P. Zak
Colangelo - Zak.Colangelo-Trenner@lewisbrisbois.com - Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP.
AMOUR VERT: Taylor Alleges Violation under ADA in Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
Amour Vert Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Todd
Taylor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Amour Vert Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00042-ELR
(N.D. Ga., Feb. 19, 2020).
Amour Vert is a fashion brand that makes classic staples like
striped t-shirts in classic colors like navy, white, black, heather
gray and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
The Oaks Firm
3895 Brookgreen Pt.
Decatur, GA 30034
Tel: (404) 725-5697
Fax: (775) 320-3695
Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com
APPLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Product Misrepresentation Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Defendant's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the
case captioned CHRISTIAN SPONCHIADO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE
INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-07533-HSG (N.D. Cal.).
Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss the First
Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs Christian Sponchiado and Courtney Davis bring this
putative consumer class action against Defendant Apple, Inc.,
alleging that Apple misrepresented the pixel resolutions and
display sizes for the iPhone X, iPhone XS, and iPhone XS Max
products (iPhone Products).
Plaintiffs assert the following six causes of action against Apple:
(1) California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (2) California
Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (3) California False Advertising Law
(FAL) (4) New York Deceptive Acts and Practices Act (5) New York
False Advertising Law and (6) common law fraud.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint
contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief. A defendant may move to dismiss a
complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only where the complaint lacks a
cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable
legal theory.
Defendant moves to dismiss on several grounds: (1) Plaintiffs fail
to meet the heightened pleading requirements under Rule 9(b) (2)
Defendant's screen-size disclosure precludes any assertion of
deception and reliance and (3) Plaintiffs fail to plead a viable
omission claim based on the alleged pixel misrepresentation.
Defendant also argues that Plaintiffs cannot pursue claims under
laws of states in which no Named Plaintiff resides.
California Consumer Protection Statutes: Reasonable Consumer
Claims under the California consumer protection statutes (CLRA,
UCL, and FAL) are governed by the reasonable consumer test. This
standard also applies to common law fraud claims.Under the
reasonable consumer standard, a plaintiff must show that `members
of the public are likely to be deceived. The test assesses not
whether it is possible that an advertisement will deceive
consumers, but whether it is probable that a significant portion of
the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting
reasonably in the circumstances could be misled.
Screen Size Representations
As currently pled, Plaintiffs' claims asserting that Defendant
misrepresented the iPhone Products' screen size fail, given the
qualifying language next to the alleged misrepresentations. While
Plaintiffs concede the existence of the disclaimer, they argue that
they have plausibly alleged that they did not, and a reasonable
consumer would not, actually notice this disclosure because its
placement was calibrated to be inconspicuous.
The Court is not persuaded. Plaintiffs include a screenshot of a
statement directly released by Defendant online and repeated at the
point of sale. In this image, Plaintiffs cannot ignore the obvious
language disclosing that the actual viewable area is less than when
measured as a standard rectangular shape. This language appears
approximately 10 lines down from the screen display specification.
The Court does not find the disclaimer inconspicuous, given its
proximity to the screen dimension representation and its relative
size.
Plaintiffs also allege that the advertisements reproduced in
paragraphs 8 and 14 contained an asterisk or footnote at the end of
the statement disclosing the screen size dimension. And Plaintiffs'
allegations admit that the accompanying footnote in the
advertisement at paragraph 14 discloses, at the bottom of the
webpages, that the phones' actual screen area is less than
indicated by the diagonal measurements. Plaintiffs assert, in
conclusory fashion, that the footnote is small and obscure.
But Plaintiffs fail to describe the relative size or placement of
the footnote with sufficient particularity for the Court to assess
whether the footnote was inconspicuous. Instead of including or
attaching as exhibits the complete webpages, Plaintiffs cite to
hyperlinks, some of which are broken.
For the Court to determine whether any disclaimer is small and
obscure, Plaintiffs must attach or include the content of the
hyperlinks in any amended complaint they may file.
Accordingly, a reasonable consumer could not be deceived by the
iPhone Products' screen size representation, given the qualifying
language expressly notifying the consumer that the actual screen
area is less than indicated.
Given these disclaimers, the Court is doubtful that Plaintiffs can
plead that the representations concerning screen size were
misleading under the CLRA, UCL, FAL, and California common law
fraud.
However, given the Ninth Circuit's clear direction on this point
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)'s mandate that leave be
freely given, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND.
Pixel Count Representations
Defendant first argues that Plaintiffs' general allegations that
they saw Apple marketing materials are insufficient to satisfy Rule
9(b). According to Defendant, Plaintiffs must specify which
particular marketing materials they relied upon including when they
were exposed to them, which ones they found material, who made the
statements, or when they were made.
Contrary to Defendant's urging, Plaintiffs have pled enough
specific facts about Apple's misrepresentations to survive a motion
to dismiss, even under Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard.
Although Plaintiffs strew examples of different advertisements in a
not-entirely clear manner throughout the FAC, the FAC does allege
which advertisements Plaintiffs allegedly saw.
Defendant further argues that Plaintiffs' pixel resolution claims
cannot survive because Defendant made no representations regarding
subpixels. However, Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendant
misrepresented the number of subpixels. Rather, Plaintiffs' theory
is that Defendant misrepresented the number of pixels because the
disclosed count is not representative of true pixels.
Whether Plaintiffs' theory of the pixel count is correct (i.e.,
whether the count resolution includes false pixels is an issue
properly addressed at the summary judgment stage.
New York General Business Law Claims
The FAC also alleges that Apple violated Sections 349 (Unfair Trade
Practices) and 350 (False Advertising) of the New York General
Business Laws (NY GBL). Section 349 prohibits "deceptive acts or
practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce and
Section 350 specifically prohibits false advertising.
Defendant argues that the NY GBL claims fail for the same reasons
as the fraud-based claims under California law. The Court agrees
that Plaintiffs' NY GBL and New York common law fraud claims based
on the alleged misrepresentation of the screen size fail because of
the disclaimer. This conclusion accords with decisions applying New
York law.
The Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss the NY GBL and New
York common law fraud claims premised on the alleged screen size
misrepresentation.
Standing to Pursue Nationwide Class Action
Defendant argues that Plaintiff Davis may not assert claims under
California law because she is a New York resident who purchased her
iPhone online. Further, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs cannot
allege claims under the laws of states in which no Named Plaintiff
resides.
Plaintiffs argue that this is an issue more properly addressed at
the class certification stage.
Plaintiffs contend that whether to dismiss claims asserted under
the laws of states in which no named plaintiff resides is a matter
of discretion for the Court, and Defendant has not given the Court
any particular reason to strike the claims made on behalf of
non-New York and non-California class members. But it is Plaintiffs
who proffer no reason the Court should defer consideration of the
standing issue to the class certification stage.
Here, there are only two Named Plaintiffs from two states
purporting to assert claims under the laws of the District of
Columbia and forty-eight other states. The claims in this case
involve at most the laws of two jurisdictions, California and New
York. Deferring consideration of the standing analysis until the
class certification stage would permit Plaintiffs, who have no
connection to the forty-nine other jurisdictions, to embark on
lengthy nationwide discovery. Plaintiffs acknowledge as much, but
assume, in conclusory fashion, that providing nationwide discovery
would not create any logistical nightmares for Defendant.
The Court disagrees, as the number of claims from the other
forty-nine jurisdictions is vast related to the claims to which the
named Plaintiffs indisputably have standing. Thus, conducting
nationwide discovery would impose a significant burden on
Defendant.
For these reasons, the Court DISMISSES the claims purportedly
brought under the laws of jurisdictions other than California and
New York.
Moreover, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss with
respect to claims based on the alleged screen size
misrepresentation WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The Court also DISMISSES the
claims on behalf of putative class members from jurisdictions other
than California and New York WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Lastly, the Court DENIES the motion to dismiss with respect to the
remaining claims based on the alleged pixel count
misrepresentation. Any amended complaint must be filed within 21
days of the date of this order, the Cort held. Plaintiffs may only
amend their current claims and may not add new claims or parties in
their second amended complaint.
A full-text copy of the District Court's November 18, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/wbh7bdr Leagle.com.
Christian Sponchiado & Courtney Davis, Plaintiffs, represented by
C.K. Lee - cklee@leelitigation.com - Lee Litigation Group, PLLC &
David Alan Makman - david@makmanlaw.com - The Law Offices of David
A. Makman.
Apple Inc., Defendant, represented by Tiffany Cheung -
tcheung@mofo.com - Morrison & Foerster LLP, Claire Celeste Bonelli
- cbonelli@mofo.com - Morrison and Foerster & Sabrina Larson -
slarson@mofo.com - Morrison and Foerster, LLP.
B.C. SURF: Taylor Alleges Violation Under Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------
B.C. Surf & Sport, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Todd Taylor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. B.C. Surf & Sport, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-00043-MLB (N.D. Ga., Feb. 19, 2020).
B.C. Surf & Sport, Inc. is a boardshop in Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Misty Oaks Paxton
The Oaks Firm
3895 Brookgreen Pt.
Decatur, GA 30034
Tel: (404) 725-5697
Fax: (775) 320-3695
Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com
BEYOND MEAT: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Beyond Meat, Inc. ("Beyond Meat" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
BYND) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, and indexed under 20-cv-00963, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired Beyond Meat securities between May
2, 2019 and January 27, 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 Beyond Meat securities
during the class period, you have until March 30, 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.
Beyond Meat is a food company that provides plant-based meats. It
offers its products in the meat platforms of beef, pork, and
poultry. The Company sells its products to various customers in
the retail and foodservice channels through brokers and
distributors in the U.S. and internationally.
Don Lee Farms ("Don Lee") is a maker of plant-based and meat
proteins. In 2014, Beyond Meat entered into an exclusive supply
agreement with Don Lee to produce all of Beyond Meat's products,
including the development and launch of the Company's popular
Beyond Burger.
In early 2017, following the launch of the Beyond Burger, Beyond
Meat terminated the Supply Agreement and transferred its production
from Don Lee to other food manufacturers.
On May 25, 2017, Don Lee filed a complaint against Beyond Meat in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles asserting claims for, inter alia, breach of contract,
misappropriation of trade secrets, and unfair competition, seeking
monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.
Don Lee's initial lawsuit spawned other related legal proceedings,
including related claims by Don Lee against one of Beyond Meat's
new manufacturing partners, ProPortion Foods, LLC ("Proportion"),
and cross-complaints by both Beyond Meat and ProPortion against Don
Lee (collectively with Don Lee's initial lawsuit, the "Don Lee
Litigation").
As the litigation progressed, Don Lee further alleged that Beyond
Meat had employed lax food safety practices during the two
companies' partnership, specifically alleging, inter alia, that Don
Lee found plastics, cardboard and a metal nozzle in ingredients
that Beyond Meat supplied and that a Beyond Meat truck had arrived
at a Don Lee processing facility with a load contaminated with an
unidentified white powder. Don Lee alleged that Beyond Meat had
provided an altered copy of a food-safety audit of its
manufacturing facilities, and on that basis added fraud claims to
its suit against Beyond Meat in March 2019.
Beyond Meat has consistently denied the merits of Don Lee's
claims.
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) Beyond Meat's termination of
its supply agreement with Don Lee constituted a breach of that
agreement, thus exposing the Company to foreseeable legal liability
and reputational harm; (ii) Beyond Meat and certain of its
employees had doctored and omitted material information from a food
safety consultant's report, which the Company represented as
accurate to Don Lee; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
On January 27, 2020, post-market, Don Lee issued a press release
entitled "Judge Rules Don Lee Farms Likely to Obtain a Judgment.
Beyond Meat's CFO and Others Named Individually for Fraud." The
press release stated, in part, that "[a] judge has ruled Don Lee
Farms proved the probable validity of its claim that Beyond Meat
breached its manufacturing agreement with Don Lee Farms" and that
"[i]n a separate motion before a different Judge, the Court granted
Don Lee Farms' request to name Beyond Meat Chief Financial Officer
Mark Nelson, Senior Quality Assurance Manager Jessica Quetsch and
Director of Operations Anthony Miller in its fraud claims which
allege they intentionally doctored and omitted material information
from a food safety consultant's report, and then delivered that
doctored report to Don Lee Farms and affirmatively represented that
it was the complete opinion of the consultant."
On this news, Beyond Meat's stock price fell $4.63 per share, or
3.71%, to close at $120.12 per share on January 28, 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
E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]
BEYOND MEAT: Rosen Law Notes of March 30 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Beyond Meat, Inc. (NASDAQ: BYND) between May 2, 2019
and January 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Beyond Meat investors under the
federal securities laws.
To join the Beyond Meat class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1764.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Beyond Meat's termination of its supply agreement with
Don Lee Farms constituted a breach of that agreement, thus exposing
the Company to foreseeable legal liability and reputational harm;
(2) Beyond Meat and certain of its employees had doctored and
omitted material information from a food safety consultant's
report, which the Company represented as accurate to Don Lee Farms;
and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 30,
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-1764.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. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Contact:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
Website: www.rosenlegal.com
[GN]
BEYOND MEAT: Schall Law Announces Filing of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Beyond Meat,
Inc. for violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between May 2,
2019 and January 27, 2020, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before March 30, 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. Beyond Meat's termination of its
agreement with its supplier, Don Lee, constituted a breach of that
agreement, exposing the Company to legal liability. The Company and
its employed falsified a food safety consultant's report, then
represented the report as accurate to Don Lee. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Beyond Meat, 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]
BIOAMBER: Rosen Law Announces Proposed Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm P.A. announces that the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York has approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of common stock and warrants of BioAmber.
(OTCMKTS:BIOAQ):
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED BIOAMBER, INC.
COMMON STOCK (CUSIP: 09072Q106) OR WARRANTS (CUSIP: 09072Q114),
EXCEPT THOSE PURCHASED ON THE TORONTO STOCK EXCHANGE, BETWEEN July
15, 2014 AND August 3, 2017, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the above-captioned action has been
certified as a class action for settlement purposes and that
Plaintiffs have reached a proposed settlement with Settling
Defendants to resolve all claims in the case for $2,250,000 in
cash. The Settlement Class consists of all persons or entities
(except Defendants, members of the immediate family of any
individual defendant, any entity in which any Defendant has more
than a 50% ownership interest, or which any Defendant controls, and
the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any
such excluded party) who purchased or otherwise acquired BioAmber,
Inc. ("BioAmber") common stock (CUSIP: 09072Q106) or warrants
(CUSIP: 09072Q114), except those purchased on the Toronto Stock
Exchange, between July 15, 2014 and August 3, 2017, both dates
inclusive ( "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby, excluding
those persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the
Class pursuant to the "Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Class
Action" ("Notice") to be sent to the Class and that are accepted by
the Court.
A hearing will be held on May 20, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. before the
Honorable Arthur D. Spatt, Courtroom 1020 of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 100 Federal
Plaza, Central Islip, New York 11722, to determine: (1) whether the
Court should approve the Settlement and Plan of Allocation as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; and (2) whether the Court should approve
Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees of up to
one-third of the Settlement Amount plus reimbursement of litigation
expenses incurred, and an incentive payment of no more than $6,000
in total, or $3,000 each, to Plaintiffs.
If you have not received a detailed Notice and a copy of the Proof
of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies by writing to or
calling BioAmber, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims
Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA
19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; or by email at
info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the website,
www.strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of the Settlement
Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form
electronically or postmarked no later than April 22, 2020 to the
Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will
be bound by any judgment, including the releases therein, rendered
in the Action whether or not you make a claim.
As further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any
judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a
Proof of Claim and Release Form, unless you exclude yourself from
the Settlement Class, in accordance with the procedures set forth
in the Notice, by no later than April 29, 2020.
Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Class
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses and award to Plaintiffs must be served no later than
April 29, 2020, in the manner and form explained in the detailed
Notice to each of the following:
Clerk of Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York 100
Federal Plaza
Central Islip, NY 11722
Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel:
Jonathan Horne, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue
40th Floor
New York, NY. 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Defendants' Counsel:
Brian E. Pastuszenski, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Tel: (212) 813-8800
Fax: (212) 355-3333
If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel at the addresses
and phone numbers listed above. [GN]
BURGER KING: Vegan Files Class Action Over Impossible Whopper
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gerren Keith Gaynor, writing for Fox News, reports that Burger King
is defending itself against a class-action lawsuit over its
Impossible Whopper, arguing that it never advertised the popular
meatless item as vegan or promised to cook them any particular
way.
The burger chain is currently in a legal battle against a vegan
customer who sued the company in November for cooking the
plant-based patties on the same grills as meat burgers.
In a court filing on Jan. 30, Burger King said the lawsuit should
be thrown out because plaintiff Phillip Williams should have asked
how Impossible Whoopers were cooked before ordering, Reuters
reports.
Williams said his Impossible Whopper was "coated in meat
by-products" after purchasing the burger at an Atlanta drive-thru.
He and vegans all over the country became outraged at Burger King's
cooking practices.
Williams "assumed that an Impossible Whopper would satisfy his own
particularly strict form of veganism . . . solely because he asked
a Burger King restaurant employee to 'hold the mayo,'" Burger King
said. "This claim has no basis."
What's more, the company said Williams would have known how the
Impossible Whopper was prepared had he done the "smallest amount of
investigation" on its website or by reading media reports.
In his lawsuit, Williams claims in the lawsuit that Burger King's
menu makes no "disclosures on its menu" that the patty-cooking
method would "result in meat by-products on the burger."
However, the fast-food chain did previously disclose that the (not
entirely) vegan burger would be made in an "open kitchen
environment" and provided an asterisk on the product's official
launch page warning consumers of its cooking methods.
Burger King also confirmed that vegan or vegetarian guests can
request their patties be prepared in an oven instead of in the
shared broiler.
In his lawsuit, Williams is seeking damages and requesting Burger
King cook the Impossible Whopper on an entirely different grill.
The Impossible Whopper rolled out to restaurants across the country
back in August.
Fox News' Alexandra Deabler contributed to this report. [GN]
COLONIAL FIRST: Faces Insurance Class Action in Victoria
--------------------------------------------------------
InsuranceNews.com.au reports that a class action has been filed
over the cost of insurance selected for members of Colonial First
State Investments Limited, the wealth management subsidiary of
Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA).
An action lodged on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Australians
in the Federal Court in Victoria in January by Shine Lawyers
alleges Colonial "tipped its members into overpriced policies with
the bank's insurance arm", even though substantially similar or
better policies with cheaper premiums were available through other
providers.
"This appears to have been a mutually beneficial arrangement that
had the effect of putting profits ahead of people," Shine lawyer
Rebecca Jancauskas said.
The action alleges members were charged excessive insurance
premiums between January 2014 and January 2020 after Colonial First
State took out group insurance policies from The Colonial Mutual
Life Assurance Society Limited, the key life insurance entity of
CommInsureLife.
"These customers were forced to pay more for life insurance as well
as total and permanent disability insurance, and this has eaten
into their superannuation," Ms Jancauskas said. "Many of these
people are approaching retirement and now their nest egg has shrunk
as a result of the conduct of Colonial."
In November a class action against NAB saw the bank agree to pay
$49.5 million to settle a group claim over "junk" credit card and
personal loan insurance. [GN]
CPO COMMERCE: Cruz Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
CPO Commerce, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael
Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CPO Commerce, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01471
(S.D. N.Y., Feb. 19, 2020).
CPO Commerce is an American online retail company that operates
more than 30+ stores including CPO Outlets, CPO DeWalt and CPO
Milwaukee. CPO's online stores are known for their selection of
power tools and accessories, as well as their selection of
refurbished tools.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
CRAIG SWAPP: Firm Agrees to $950K Settlement Over Crash Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kip Hill, writing for The Spokesman-Review, reports that thousands
of Washington motorists are eligible for compensation from a
prominent personal injury lawyer alleged to have improperly used
car collision reports to solicit new clients.
U.S. District Court Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson signed off on a
preliminary class action settlement late last year requiring Craig
Swapp, an attorney known for his ambitious marketing campaign and
billboards in Washington, Idaho, Colorado and Utah, to pay $950,000
to people his firm contacted after purchasing in bulk collision
reports from the Washington State Patrol. Attorneys for Jade
Wilcox, the Spokane woman who originally brought the lawsuit in
2017, say Swapp sent notices to more than 30,000 drivers statewide
in violation of a federal law protecting the privacy of motorists.
Swapp's firm, headquartered in Utah, directed questions for comment
on the settlement to James King, Esq., a Spokane-based attorney
handling the defense in the class-action lawsuit. King did not
return a phone message requesting comment left Tuesday. The
settlement agreement does not make a conclusion about whether Swapp
violated privacy law.
Jim Sweetser, Esq., one of the Spokane attorneys representing
Wilcox, said the actions amounted to "electronic ambulance
chasing." Advertising such as the billboards and television spots
that Swapp has used in Spokane and elsewhere amounts to attorneys
throwing darts into the community, hoping one will land, Sweetser
said.
Buying the reports, which the WSP charges a $10.50 fee to produce,
created an uneven playing field for other injury lawyers, he
argued.
"With Swapp, he was throwing a dart in the bull's-eye every time,"
Sweetser said.
Wilcox, who received two mailers from Swapp's firm after crashes in
2015 and 2016, originally sued the WSP and its chief, alleging
reports containing her name, address and other identifying
information violated her privacy. But a federal judge ruled that
state officials were not liable for privacy invasions because their
official duties required the release of the records.
During the lawsuit, WSP was ordered to create a system that
required redaction of records unless the person purchasing them
promised not to use them for unlawful purposes. Chris Loftin,
communications director for the WSP in Olympia, said via email the
organization had made "no policy or procedural changes directly due
to the lawsuit."
Wilcox also brought action against Swapp, who argued in court
filings that the information obtained was not prohibited by a 1994
federal law limiting commercial use of the data contained within
the reports. That law, crafted in response to picketing and
sometimes violent attacks against abortion providers whose names
and addresses could be obtained through public record requests,
prohibits disclosure of certain driver's license information unless
the person consents.
The law included some exemptions, including confirming that a
driver possessed a commercial vehicle license or contacting people
"in anticipation of litigation."
The U.S. Supreme Court examined those exemptions in 2013, ruling in
a split decision specifically that law firms could not use the
information to solicit new clients. Wilcox's lawsuit alleged that
Swapp continued, from 2013 to 2017, to buy collision reports in
bulk and use that information to send targeted advertisements
offering his firm's legal services.
Sweetser, Washington D.C.-based attorney R. Joseph Barton, Esq. and
Thomas Jarrard, Esq. of Spokane, are handling the class action
process. Notices were mailed earlier this month to motorists who
received an advertisement after being involved in a vehicle crash
to notify them they may be entitled to compensation. If the class
is as large as Sweetser estimates, payouts to each driver would
likely be less than $30.
Still, Sweetser said, the ruling would establish boundaries on
advertising for legal services and how personal information could
be used. The parties are scheduled to meet with Peterson in Spokane
on April 29 to finalize the deal. Those affected have until March 9
to contact the court and opt out of the class-action lawsuit, which
would allow them to file their own lawsuit.
Those with questions about the settlement agreement are asked to
call (833) 513-0212, or visit swappsettlement.com. [GN]
CREDIT LOAN: Uses Illegal Telemarketing Strategy, Alsuliman Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUCINE ALSULIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CREDIT LOAN, LLC; DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01467 (C.D. Cal.,
February 13, 2020) arises from the Defendant's illegal action of
contacting Plaintiff on her cellular telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant used an automatic
telephone dialing system to place its daily calls to Plaintiff in
an effort to sell or solicit its business services.
The Plaintiff is not a customer of Defendant's services and has
never provided any personal information, including her cellular
telephone number, to Defendant for any purpose whatsoever.
Credit Loan, LLC is a small business and personal lending company
based in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: 877-206-4741
Facsimile: 866-633-0228
CURA CANNABIS: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Vape Cartridges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Mesh, writing for Willamette Week, reports that two days
after Portland-based company Cura Cannabis agreed to pay a record
fine to settle allegations it sold vape oils with misleading
labels, a Portland couple filed a class-action lawsuit demanding
the company relinquish any profits it made from those products.
Tom and Elena Powers of Portland bought Select brand vape products
from Cura. Those vape pen cartridges claimed to contain only
cannabis oil, but in fact included botanical terpenes. (That's the
name for plant-based extracts designed to make vapes taste good.)
Those botanical terpenes were briefly banned by Gov. Kate Brown
during a respiratory illness outbreak last fall. But Cura kept
selling them, state investigators concluded -- part of the reason
why the Oregon Liquor Control Commission issued a record $110,000
fine to Cura. (The governor's ban was held up in court, but Cura's
products would still have been misleadingly labeled even if they
weren't banned.)
On Jan. 30, Cura agreed to pay the OLCC fine. The penalty would end
a state investigation of the company, and allow the completion of
its sale to Canadian investors.
The lawsuit, filed Jan. 31 in Multnomah County Circuit Court by
Portland lawyer Michael Fuller, demands that Cura relinquish any
profits made from mislabeled products.
"We expect to try this case before an Oregon jury sometime within
the next year," Fuller tells WW. "The final judgment against Cura
may exceed $37 million including statutory damages."
The lawsuit arrives as Cura is on the brink of completing a sale to
a Canadian firm. The sale was announced last year as a
billion-dollar acquisition—which would have made Cura one of the
state's only "unicorns" (a company valued at $1 billion). But the
value of the sale has shrunk considerably since then.
The mislabeled Select vape cartridges are at the center of Cura's
business model. Cannabis oil is among the most lucrative sectors of
the weed business, but it's taken a body blow thanks to last fall's
health crisis linked to cannabis vapes.
A Cura spokesperson could not immediately be reached for comment.
Emails obtained by the Portland Business Journal show the company
told the OLCC the mislabeling was an internal communication problem
and not an attempt to deceive. Regulators agreed. [GN]
CUSTOM FURNITURE: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Custom Furniture Technologies, Inc. is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Custom Furniture Technologies,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01465 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 19,
2020).
Custom Furniture Technologies, Inc., doing business as The Inside,
provides home decoration products. The Company offers pillows,
settees, chaises, benches, daybeds, ottomans, bar and counter
stools, screens, and dining chairs. The Inside serves customers in
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
DEALERS' CHOICE: Bridges Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Hershal Bridges III and Jason C. Hurd III,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
DEALERS' CHOICE TRUCKAWAY SYSTEM, INC., a Kansas Corporation DBA
TRUCKMOVERS; IRONTIGER LOGISTICS, INC., A Missouri Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV46408, was removed
from the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 19,
2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01620 to the
proceeding.
The Complaint lists the following causes of action under California
law, specifically: (1) failure to provide required meal periods;
(2) failure to provide required rest periods; (3) failure to pay
minimum wage; (4) failure to pay all wages due to discharged or
quitting employees; (5) failure to furnish accurate itemized
statements; (6) failure to indemnify employees for necessary
expenditures incurred in discharge of duties; (7) unlawful
deductions from wages; and (8) unfair and unlawful business
practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: (626) 795-4700
Fax: (626) 795-4790
Email: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com
DESERT LAKE GROUP: Olson Suit Transferred to Arkansas Dist. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Chris Olson, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Desert Lake Group LLC,
doing business as: First Class Herb Tincture, doing business as:
First Class Herbalist CBD, doing business as: Herbalist Oils, doing
business as: Herbalist Silver, doing business as: Herbalist Sleep,
doing business as: Sociallity LLC, doing business as: Sociallity
Accessnow Health Community, doing business as:, Sociality Group,
OZN Web LLC, Darin Toone, Peter Gallic, Chris Armstrong and John
Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 58CV-19-00606, was transferred from
Pope County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas on February 19, 2020, and assigned
Case No. 4:20-cv-00165-BSM.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer
Credit.
Desert Lake Group, LLC sells products made with essential oils and
CBD oil under the names First Class Herb Tincture, First Class
Herbalist CBD, First Class Herbalist Oils, and USA Herbalist
Oils.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Streett, Esq.
Street Law Firm, P.A.
107 West Main
Russellville, AR 72801
Tel: (479) 968-2030
Email: james@streettlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Byron Jansen Walker, Esq.
Rose Law Firm
120 East Fourth Street
Little Rock, AR 72201-2893
Tel: (501) 377-0351
Email: bwalker@roselawfirm.com
DETAIL GARAGE: Cardinal Investments Sue Over Franchise Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Investments One, LLC, Cardinal Investments Two, LLC, Wendy
J. Jones and Lynn Gangamella, Plaintiffs, v. Detail Garage, LLC,
Smart, LLC, Auto Detailing Supplies, LLC, CG Group Holdings, LLC,
David Knotek, D. Paul Bower Schneider and Chad Zani, Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-00579, (C.D. Cal., January 21, 2020), is a class
action that seeks damages, interest and any other and further
relief resulting from breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, negligent interference with prospective economic
advantage, intentional interference with contractual relations and
violation of California Franchise Investment Law, California
Corporations Code, Robinson-Patman Act, Sherman Antitrust Act,
California Unfair Practices Act, California Cartwright Act and
California Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Defendants created the "Detail Garage." Plaintiffs are Detail
Garage franchisees who have purchased and operate Detail Garage
franchise stores that sell high-end automotive detailing products,
accessories, tools and instructional services manufactured,
distributed, and/or sold by franchisor's affiliate and sole
supplier, Smart, LLC.
Plaintiffs contend that Defendants failed to inform them of the
true costs of opening and operating a Detail Garage store; that
Detail Garage determined pricing and quantities of products; that
Smart controlled the approval of franchisee requests to use
alternate suppliers and products; that shortages due to unavailable
products far exceed 5%; and that Detail Garage failed to provide
training programs and support to the franchisees. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Leslie Schwaebe Akins, Esq.
LESLIE SCHWAEBE AKINS, A LAW CORPORATION
7157 Argonauta Way
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Telephone: (760) 931-2920
Facsimile: (760) 603-0547
E-Mail: lsa@stockmarketlaw.com
DIRECT LIQUIDATION: Cruz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Direct Liquidation LLP is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Direct Liquidation LLP, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01469 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 19, 2020).
Direct Liquidation is a wholesale marketplace for surplus
merchandise, including customer returns, overstock and end-of-life
products. Merchandise is sorted, tested, refurbished and
re-packaged ready to be resold.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
DOUGLAS EMMETT: Faces Negligence Class Action After Fire Death
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Weber, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
19-year-old French citizen who was gravely injured when flames tore
through a high-rise apartment tower died on Jan. 31 at a hospital,
authorities said.
The Fire Department announced the death but provided no details.
The Los Angeles County coroner's office identified him as Jeremy
Bru of France. But it had no other details, and there was no
immediate word on the exact cause of his death.
Bru was a foreign exchange student, KCBS-TV reported.
Bru was among 11 people who were treated after the Jan. 29 fire,
mostly for smoke inhalation. Seven of them, including a 3-month-old
child and a man in critical condition, were sent to hospitals.
There was no updated word on their conditions on Jan. 31.
In addition, two firefighters received minor burns as they
scrambled to reach the apartment where the blaze began using
bottled oxygen, fire Capt. Erik Scott said.
In some dramatic rescues, helicopter crews plucked 15 people from
the roof and a ladder was used to save a man who clung to the
outside of the building as flames raged in nearby apartments.
The fire displaced 339 residents, and some wondered why the
management company didn't install sprinklers after another
destructive blaze seven years ago.
City officials said after the 2013 fire "that it shouldn't take
another tragedy" to get sprinklers into older buildings that are
exempt from retrofitting rules, City Councilman Mike Bonin said on
Jan. 30. "But it did."
Bonin introduced a council motion on Jan. 31 to seek an ordinance
that would require sprinklers in residential buildings built more
than 50 years ago, before regulations required fire-suppression
systems in buildings taller than 75 feet (23 meters).
It's an issue that officials in other U.S. cities have grappled
with in recent years. Honolulu passed regulations requiring
stricter safety rules for buildings with 10 floors or more after a
fire raged through a 35-story condominium in 2017, killing four
people. It was built in 1971, before the city required condos to
have a sprinkler system.
In Chicago, a 2015 law required residential high-rises that were
built before 1975 to install fire sprinklers. In New York City,
many older residential buildings lack sprinklers, a fact that made
headlines in 2018 when a fire at Trump Tower killed a resident and
injured firefighters.
The Los Angeles City Council has considered expanding the sprinkler
requirement for years, but they "petered out in committee," Bonin
said.
Previously, the effort faced objections from building owners who
said the fixes would be too expensive and would drive up rents.
This time, council members are committed to getting the law passed,
and they have the backing of building owners and tenants' groups,
Bonin said.
He said officials hope to find federal grants to cover the
installation costs, but if not, he wants to see management
companies pick up the tab. For the most part, they are corporations
-- "not mom-and-pop owners" -- that can afford the costs.
Los Angeles Fire Chief Ralph Terrazas recommended in 2017 that
sprinklers be installed in all 55 high-rise buildings that still
lacked them. At the time, the department estimated that the updates
would cost about $6,000 per unit.
"Is someone really going to come to council chambers and argue that
the life of a tenant isn't worth 6,000 bucks?" Bonin asked.
Greg Brown, senior vice president of government affairs at the
National Apartment Association, said in a statement that apartment
owners face complex and expensive challenges in retrofitting
existing buildings.
"Existing apartment buildings already operate under fire codes,
required evacuations and safety plans, and annual municipal
inspections processes to ensure resident safety," he said.
"Mandating such retrofits would negatively impact an already
inadequate affordable housing supply and discourage investment in
older housing stock."
Images of flames spewing from the seventh floor of the Barrington
Plaza were eerily similar to those from the 2013 fire that caused
injuries and gutted the 11th floor.
Puja Oza and her roommate Dalia Kingsbury got calls and texts from
friends about the fire before they heard smoke alarms. Still
wearing pajamas, they ran with their golden retriever, Seymour, and
their panicked neighbors down 16 flights.
In a hotel the next day, Oza wondered whether a sprinkler system
would have doused the flames before they got out of control.
"The fire destroyed three other apartments in the time it took for
firefighters to get up there," she said. "I just don't understand
how it's not already a law. It's really ridiculous."
Tenants filed a class-action lawsuit on Jan. 30 accusing the
building's owner, Douglas Emmett Inc., of negligence.
In response to a request for comment on the lawsuit, the fire and
the lack of sprinklers, the company said in statements on Jan. 31
that its "thoughts and prayers are with those who are injured" and
its focus was on getting residents back into their homes.
The company said floors 10 through 25 were cleared for residents to
return to their units and residents of the lower floors were being
accommodated in hotels until further notice.
The statements did not address the lawsuit but said the building
had passed its most recent Fire Department inspection and that the
company was interested in learning the results of the investigation
into the cause of the fire, "which appears to have started inside
one of the residential units."
Landlords neglecting fire safety is an ongoing issue, said Jacob
Woocher of the Los Angeles Tenants Union.
"Across the city, we see owners minimize spending on maintenance
and upkeep in order to maximize profits, and cutting corners on
fire safety is just one particularly egregious way their greed can
endanger the lives of tenants," he said.
The complex has 240 units that range in rent from $2,350 to $3,695
per month, according to Zillow.
The building passed a fire inspection in June, Scott said. [GN]
DURHAM & DURHAM: Lorenzo Files FDCPA Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Durham & Durham LLP.
The case is styled as Lubena Lorenzo, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Durham & Durham LLP,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00109-SPC-MRM (M.D., Fla., Feb. 19,
2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act.
Durham & Durham LLP offers legal and business services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Sanders Law, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
EVENFLO COMPANY: Sapeika Files Suit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evenflo Company, Inc.
The case is styled as Insight Amy Sapeika, individially and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Evenflo
Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00068-TMR (S.D., Ohio,
Feb. 19, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud
filed over Diversity-Fraud.
Evenflo Company, Inc. is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts and
principally engages in the design, research and development,
manufacturing, marketing and sale of Evenflo Baby and ExerSaucer
branded juvenile products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Burdette Helmer, Jr., Esq.
Helmer Martins, Rice &Popham Co., L.P.A. - 2
600 Vine Street, Suite 2704
Cincinnati, OH 45202-4008
Tel: (513) 421-2400
Fax: (513) 421-7902
Email: jhelmer@fcalawfirm.com
FACEBOOK INC: Agrees to Pay $550MM in Illinois Over Face-Tagging
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Montalbano, writing for Threat Post, reports that
Facebook has agreed to pay $550 million to Illinois users to settle
a class action lawsuit filed over the use of its face-tagging
technology to collect facial-recognition data on its social media
platform.
The company unveiled the settlement on a quarterly financial call
Wednesday, in which it attributed the settlement to the company's
general and administrative costs, which increased 87 percent from a
year ago, according to a published report.
"We decided to pursue a settlement as it was in the best interest
of our community and our shareholders to move past this matter,"
according to a statement from Facebook.
The suit stems from a class-action proceeding from Facebook users
in Illinois over a feature called Tag Suggestions, which identifies
Facebook users in photos based on biometric identification
technology and suggests that they be "tagged" in photos on someone
else's profile based on that info.
Users in Illinois claimed the feature violates a state biometric
privacy law because it does not ask user permission to collect
facial-recognition data, nor does it inform users how long the
biometric data will be kept, according to the suit. The suit was
certified as a class action in 2018 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.
Facebook tried to get the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco to quash the suit; however, the court decided unanimously
to allow the suit to proceed in an August decision. The company had
vowed to appeal that decision before announcing this week's
settlement in the case.
The payout is not the first Facebook has made over its use of
technology and consumer privacy issues, and it likely won't be the
last. The company already was fined $5 billion by the Federal Trade
Commission for privacy violations stemming from the company's role
in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the largest ever levied by the
agency. Facebook also faced fines in Italy and the United Kingdom
over data privacy.
Many believe the fines won't do much to change the company's
technology agenda and how it uses data collected by its
social-media network, as they are merely a drop in the bucket to a
company that announced $21 billion in its latest quarterly
earnings.
However, the class-action suit has already shown some impact on the
Facebook's privacy policies. The company made changes to its facial
recognition feature in September in response to the proceeding,
allowing users to opt out of the Tag Suggestions feature.
At the time Facebook said it was replacing its platform's default
Tag Suggestions setting–which automatically offered suggestions
for users to be tagged in friends' photos–with a new privacy
button, called Face Recognition. The change allowed users to
manually turn off the button they don't want their biometrics to be
used in suggested photo tags.
Indeed, biometrics and their use in both the public and private
sector has been a highly controversial topic, with citizens and
critics pushing back on the technology based on privacy issues
after some high-profile leaks of biometric data.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection faced criticism in June
after the agency unveiled a data breach exposed photos of the faces
and license plates for more than 100,000 travelers driving in and
out of the country.
In August, it was biometric security company Suprema that came
under fire after researchers discovered the personal and biometrics
data of more than a million people left publicly exposed on a
database owned by the company. [GN]
FACEBOOK INC: Gibbs Law Announces $40M Settlement Over Ad Metrics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A $40 million settlement has been reached to resolve a nationwide
class action lawsuit, Case No. 4:16-cv-06232-JSW, on behalf of
Facebook advertisers announces Gibbs Law Group. The lawsuit alleges
that Facebook overstated its metrics for the average time spent
watching videos on its platform and seeks reimbursement for
affected advertisers who allegedly spent more on Facebook video ads
than they otherwise would have. If the settlement is approved by
the Court, affected advertisers who are eligible for a portion of
the recovery will automatically receive payments, no claim form
submission is required. The plaintiffs are represented by Gibbs Law
Group, Eglet Adams, and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll.
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Facebook will create a
$40 million settlement fund to resolve the lawsuit. Money payments
will be automatically delivered directly to class members on a pro
rata basis; people or entities who had an account with Facebook
from February 12, 2015 to September 23, 2016 and paid for placement
of video advertisements on a Facebook-owned platform are eligible
for payment through the settlement.
The Court is expected to hold a hearing on March 20, 2020 to
consider final approval of the proposed settlement. Class members
who do not want to be part of the settlement have the option to
exclude themselves. Class members may also ask the Court to deny
approval by filing an objection. The deadline to exclude from or
object to the Settlement is February 12, 2020.
For more information and additional updates about the lawsuit and
settlement, or to find out how to exclude yourself or object to the
settlement, please visit www.videoadvertisingsettlement.com or
contact the settlement administrator at 866-778-9623.
Contact:
Eric Gibbs, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP
Email: ehg@classlawgroup.com [GN]
FACEBOOK INC: Settlement Watershed Moment for Biometric Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bangkok Post reports that Facebook's massive settlement in a class
action case over violating a state law on how it uses facial
recognition is being hailed as a watershed moment for "biometric
privacy."
The leading social network said on Jan. 29 it agreed to the $550
million payout after failing to win dismissal of the case alleging
it illegally collected biometric information for "face tagging" in
violation of a 2008 Illinois privacy law.
The settlement could have wide-ranging implications for Facebook
and other tech firms using facial recognition technology, and
highlights the potential for state laws to force changes in privacy
practices.
Plaintiff attorney Jay Edelson said the case helps establish the
principle of biometric privacy, or the right of users of tech
services and products to control access to their data used for
facial recognition.
"Biometrics is one of the two primary battlegrounds, along with
geolocation, that will define our privacy rights for the next
generation," Edelson said in a statement.
"We hope and expect that other companies will follow Facebook's
lead and pay significant attention to the importance of our
biometric information."
Attorney Nathan Wessler of the American Civil Liberties Union,
which backed the plaintiffs' legal arguments, said the settlement
could mark a turning point for consumers and biometrics.
"Companies are going to have to take this seriously," Wessler
said.
"Hopefully a settlement of this size will be a deterrent."
The deal is one of the largest settlements in a US privacy case,
topped only by Facebook's $5 billion deal with the Federal Trade
Commission on its data practices. Both are awaiting court
approval.
- Facial recognition growing -
The legal case comes amid an array of deployments of biometric
technologies such as facial recognition for law enforcement and
border control, but also for "tagging" in social networks and in
applications for retail stores or unlocking personal devices and
cars.
Several US cities including San Francisco have passed bans on the
use of facial recognition technology. There are concerns about
creating large databases with the potential for errors in
identifying some individuals.
"We have seen growing recognition in the courts and in the public
for the last few years on the need for reasonable but strong limits
on the collection and use of our most private information," Wessler
said.
The Illinois law does not apply to government entities or
contractors. At least two other states have similar laws, but
Illinois is the only one allowing for private lawsuits for damages
when companies collect data without consent.
Alan Butler of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which
also supported the plaintiff arguments, called the case "hugely
significant" with a potential impact for all Facebook users.
Butler noted that the courts ruled the case could proceed merely on
the basis of showing a violation, without evidence of specific
harms.
- Unintended consequences? -
But the Illinois law and similar restrictions may have negative
consequences as well, according to Daniel Castro of the Information
Technology and Innovation Foundation, a think tank often aligned
with industry.
The ability to sue without showing damages has unleashed a flood of
litigation and some firms "are even blocking their services in
Illinois to avoid the risk of penalties. That's not good for
consumers," Castro said.
"At the same time, it does not do much to actually address many
specific concerns, such as police use of facial recognition to
track citizens."
Castro said the "patchwork" of state laws could make it difficult
for tech firms to launch new products, leaving them at a
disadvantage compared to their Chinese counterparts.
The settlement comes as US lawmakers are debating federal privacy
legislation, with some proposals that could pre-empt laws such as
those in Illinois.
Wessler argued that some states have been taking the lead in
offering strong privacy rules, and that a federal law could weaken
overall data protection.
"The worst outcome would be a weak federal law with no private
right of action, and which pre-empts state law, even though that is
what the industry is seeking," he said. [GN]
FACEBOOK INC: Settles Facial Recognition Class Action for $800MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Denham Sadler, writing for ACS, reports that Facebook has settled a
class action lawsuit over its use of facial recognition technology
for more than $800 million in a result that will make other tech
companies "very nervous".
Facebook quietly settled the case in Illinois recently for $US550
million, its quarterly earning results revealed.
The class action centred on the social media giant's 'Tag
Suggestions' feature, which used facial recognition technology to
suggest the names of people in users' photos.
The service analysed biometric details of individual's faces,
including the distance between their eyes, their noses and other
features.
Facebook also kept a database of these face templates.
The service was launched in 2011 and was turned on by default, with
users able to opt out of it.
The class action lawsuit, launched in 2015, claimed that the
service breach Illinois' 2008 Biometric Information Privacy Act,
which protects an individual's "concrete interests in privacy".
Under the state law, Facebook could have been up for damages of up
to $US1,000 for each negligent violation and up to $US5,000 for
each intentional or reckless violation.
The lawsuit argued that Facebook collected the highly sensitive
biometric information without the informed consent of users and
without telling them for how long this data would be kept.
Late last year, Facebook last a Federal Court appeal to have the
case thrown out, with the judges ruling that the facial recognition
could violate the state's privacy law.
Lawyers for the Facebook users' said that biometric data is the
most personal information an individual possesses and that there is
"simply no recourse" if it is compromised.
"It's not like a Social Security card or credit card number where
you can change the number. You can't change your face," the lawyer
said.
Facebook had previously described the claims as "baseless".
Facebook's pay-out will go to the eligible users in Illinois
impacted by the service, along with paying for the plaintiff's
legal fees.
The pay-out was included in Facebook's general and administrative
costs, which have risen by 87 per cent from last year.
"We decided to pursue a settlement as it was in the best interest
of our community and our shareholders to move past this matter,"
Facebook chief financial officer David Wehner said in the earnings
report.
Lawyer Jay Edelson, who represented the Facebook users in the class
action, said it was a victory for privacy.
"From people who are passionate about gun rights to those who care
about women's reproductive issues, the right to participate in
society anonymously is something that we cannot afford to lose,"
Edelson said.
The Illinois privacy law requires companies to obtain written
permission before they collect an individual's biometric
information, and gives residents the ability to sue companies for
up to $US5,000 for each privacy violation.
Electronic Privacy Information Center executive director Marc
Rotenberg said Facebook's pay-out and the strong privacy law will
have other tech companies worried.
"The Illinois law has real teeth," Rotenberg told the New York
Times. "It pretty much stopped Facebook in its tracks.
"Tech firms and other companies that collect biometric data must be
very nervous right now."
The Tag Suggestions feature was also part of a $US5 billion
settlement Facebook made with the Federal Trade Commission in
Europe over privacy violations in 2012, with the service
deactivated that year.
Last year, Facebook rolled out a new opt-in facial recognition
service for users around the world, quietly ditching the Tag
Suggestions at the same time.
The new service allows users to more actively manage the use of
facial recognition on the platform, and to decide whether to allow
the technology to identify the user in their friends' photos and on
their own photos. [GN]
FACEBOOK INC: Workers With Arbitration Deals Not Entitled to Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Wozniak -- peter.wozniak@btlaw.com -- and Mark Wallin --
mark.wallin@btlaw.com -- of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, in an article
for The National Law Review, reports that in welcome news for
employers defending collective actions under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit recently joined the Fifth Circuit in holding that "[t]he
court may not authorize notice to any employee whom the employer
shows entered a valid arbitration agreement, unless the record
reveals that nothing in the agreement would prohibit that employee
from participating in the action."
In Bigger v. Facebook, Inc., the plaintiffs brought a proposed
collective action under Section 216(b) of the FLSA, alleging
"violations of the FLSA overtime-pay requirements." In FLSA
collective actions, if the court determines that there exists a
population of "similarly situated" indivduals, the court can, in
its discretion, authorize notice to be sent to employees advising
them of the suit and of their ability to opt in. The district court
did so. In response, the defendant employer argued that most of the
"employees in the group had entered arbitration agreements waiving
their right to participate in the action," and thus the district
court abused its discretion by authorizing notice to be sent to
them. Interlocutory review was granted.
According to the Seventh Circuit, the case presented the question
of whether "a court may authorize notice to individuals who
allegedly entered mutual arbitration agreements, waiving their
right to join the action." In its judgement, the court explained
the "twin goals" of collective action: "enforcement and
efficiency." That is, ostensibly preventing FLSA violations and
resolving common issues in a single action. However, the court also
recognized the potential for abuse inherent in FLSA collective
actions, namely that "plaintiffs may wield the collective-action
format for settlement leverage," noting that "expanding the
litigation with additional plaintiffs increases pressure to settle,
no matter the action's merits."
Ultimately, in a matter of first impression, the Seventh Circuit
held that "a court may not authorize notice to individuals whom the
court has been shown entered mutual arbitration agreements waiving
their right to join the action." Moreover, "the court must give the
defendant an opportunity to make that showing." To guide the
district court in analyzing whether the showing has been made, the
Seventh Circuit explained the steps the trial court must take:
The district court must determine if any plaintiff contests the
validity of defendant's assertions regarding the arbitration
agreements. If no plaintiff contests assertions, notice may not be
sent to those employees.
If a plaintiff contests the assertions, the parties must submit
evidence regarding the validity of the arbitration agreements. The
defendant employer bears the burden of showing, by a "preponderance
of the evidence," the existence of a valid arbitration agreement
for all employees sought to be excluded.
The Seventh Circuit vacated the order authorizing notice, and
remanded to the district court to apply the newly announced
standard.
The Bigger decision is good news for employers defending collective
actions under the FLSA, insofar as it makes clear that individuals
who have executed arbitration agreements are not entitled to
court-sanctioned notice. This arises most often when some, but not
all, of the potential collective action members have executed
arbitration agreements.
It remains to be seen what evidence and arguments the parties will
present to the district court (including whether non-signatories
have standing to challenge the validity of other employees'
arbitration agreements), and what the outcome will be when the
Seventh Circuit's newly announced standard is applied. What is
clear is that for employers with an arbitration program, the Bigger
decision provides a strategic weapon for fracturing putative FLSA
collective actions and potentially stopping those suits in their
tracks. [GN]
FAIRWAY GROUP: Village Buying All Assets for $70 Million Cash
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fairway Group Holdings Corp., and debtor affiliates, ask the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to authorize
the bidding procedures in connection with the sale of substantially
all assets, consisting primarily of the grocery stores, cafes, and
beer, wine, and liquor stores, and an approximately 240,000 square
foot production and distribution facility ("PDC"), and related
leasehold interests, inventory, intellectual property, prepaid
expenses, and other assets, to Village Super Market, Inc. for $70
million in cash plus assumption of certain liabilities, subject to
overbid.
The consummation of sale transactions that will maximize value for
the Debtors' estates and preserve as many jobs of their employees
as possible is the cornerstone of the Debtors' chapter 11 strategy.
To that end, the Debtors have secured the Stalking Horse Bid from
the Stalking Horse Bidder.
The Stalking Horse Agreement is the product of the Debtors' and
their advisors' extensive prepetition marketing efforts. Given the
exigencies of the Debtors' financial condition, the milestones set
forth under their DIP Facility, and the conditions to closing the
Sale Transaction contemplated by the Stalking Horse Agreement, the
timely sale of the Assets, in accordance with the sale process
proposed, is the best way to avoid a fire-sale liquidation of the
Debtors' estates. Liquidation would be a worst-case scenario for
all of the Debtors' economic stakeholders, including for thousands
of Fairway employees.
Accordingly, in consultation with the Ad Hoc Group, the Debtors
have developed bidding and auction procedures to govern the sale of
the Assets. The Bidding Procedures allow interested parties to
submit bids for (a) all of the Assets in the Stalking Horse Bid;
(b) certain individual Assets or combinations of Assets included in
the Stalking Horse Package; or (c) Assets not included in the
Stalking Horse Package, in each case, subject to the terms and
provisions of the Bidding Procedures.
The Bidding Procedures were designed with the objective of
generating the greatest level of interest in and best value for the
Assets while affording the Debtors maximum flexibility to execute
asset sales as quickly and efficiently as possible. The Debtors
are confident that the Bidding Procedures and the other relief
requested herein will facilitate the sale of the Assets for the
highest or otherwise best value, preserve as many jobs as possible
for their dedicated employees, and maximize recoveries.
By the Motion, the Debtors ask entry of:
(a) the Bidding Procedures Order, (i) authorizing and
approving the Bidding Procedures in connection with the sale of the
Assets; (ii) approving Stalking Horse Bid Protections for the
Stalking Horse Bidder in accordance with the terms and conditions
set forth in the Stalking Horse Agreement and the Bidding
Procedures; (iii) authorizing the Debtors to designate one or more
additional stalking horse bidders for one or more of the Other
Assets and offer each such Additional Stalking Horse Bidder certain
bid protections; (iv) scheduling auctions of the Assets; (v)
scheduling hearings to consider approval of the proposed Sale
Transactions; (vi) authorizing and approving (1) notice of the sale
of Assets, the Auctions, and the Sale Hearings; and (2) notice to
each relevant non-Debtor counterparty to an executory contract or
unexpired non-residential real property lease regarding the
Debtors' potential assumption and assignment of their Contracts or
Leases and of the Debtors' calculation of the amount necessary to
cure any defaults thereunder; (vii) authorizing and approving the
Assumption and Assignment Procedures; and (viii) granting related
relief; and
(b) one or more orders authorizing and approving the
following: (i) the sale of Assets free and clear of all liens,
claims, interests, and encumbrances, except certain permitted
encumbrances as determined by the Debtors and any purchaser of the
Assets, with liens to attach to the proceeds of the applicable Sale
Transactions; (ii) the assumption and assignment of proposed
assumed Contracts and Leases in connection with the Sale
Transactions; and (iii) granting related relief.
The salient terms of the Stalking Horse Agreement are:
a. Acquired Assets is defined in Section 1.1 of the Stalking
Horse Agreement and includes, among other things, all Inventory,
Furnishings and Equipment, Assumed Leases, rights under the
Transferred Contracts, Sellers security deposits (excluding
adequate assurance deposits), Modified Labor Agreement(s) (to the
extent an agreement is reach with the Unions), Permits, and
intellectual property, including the Fairway and Fairway Markets
trademarks.
b. The Closing will take place as soon as reasonably
practicable, and in no event later than three Business Days
following the date upon which the last to be satisfied or waived of
each of the conditions set forth in Article VII of the Stalking
Horse Agreement will have been satisfied or waived in accordance
with the Stalking Horse Agreement.
c. If prior to the Closing any Acquired Assets (excluding
inventory), any Store or the PDC is damaged or destroyed, and the
amount required to repair, restore or reconstruct such damage is
greater than $750,000, the Cash Purchase Price will be reduced by
amount of damages and Buyer will retain the damaged asset (with
Sellers retaining the right to any insurance proceeds).
d. If any property on which a Store (except for the Broadway
Store and the 86th Street Stores) is located is subject to a taking
or condemnation which materially interferes with Buyer’s ability
to operate the applicable Store or the PDC, the Buyer may elect to
not purchase such Store or the PDC and the Cash Purchase Price will
be reduced by the amount allocated to the PDC or the Store, as
applicable.
e. If (a) the Broadway Store or the 86th Street Store is
damaged or destroyed and the amount required to repair, restore, or
reconstruct such Store is greater than $4 million or (b) the
property which such Store is located is condemned and such
condemnation is reasonably expected to have a material adverse
impact on the Buyer's ability to operate the Store, then the Buyer
will have the right to terminate the Stalking Horse Agreement with
no penalty.
f. With respect to Covered Employees under an Affected Labor
Agreement, the Buyer will engage in good faith negotiations, in
coordination with Sellers, to reach mutually satisfactory
modifications to the relevant Affected Labor Agreement with each of
the Affected Unions and to enter into a Modified Labor Agreement
with each of the Affected Unions.
Importantly, the Stalking Horse Bidder has agreed to interview and
extend offers of employment to substantially all of the Covered
Employees employed at the Stores and at least 50% of the Covered
Employees employed at the PDC (over 400 employees), at the same
location of employment as the Covered Employees' location of
employment and on the same terms and conditions of employment (as
modified by a Modified Labor Agreement) as those immediately prior
to Closing.
The Debtors have determined, in their reasonable business judgment,
that having the flexibility to designate Additional Stalking Horse
Bidders for certain of the Other Assets will enhance their ability
to maximize value of their Assets and is in the best interests of
their estates. Accordingly, as set forth in further detail in the
Bidding Procedures, the Debtors ask authority to enter into
Additional Stalking Horse Agreement, pursuant to which the Debtors
would provide Additional Stalking Horse Bidders with Additional
Stalking Horse Bid Protections.
Specifically, the Debtors propose to offer each Additional Stalking
Horse Bidder a break-up fee in an amount that will not exceed 3% of
the cash portion of the purchase price in the applicable Additional
Stalking Horse Bid, subject to notice and an opportunity for
parties in interest to object. In accordance with the Noticing
Procedures, upon the designation of an Additional Stalking Horse
Bidder, the Debtors either will include in the Sale Notice the
material terms of the applicable Additional Stalking Horse
Agreement, or will file with the Court, serve on the Sale Notice
Parties, and cause to be published on the website maintained by
Omni Agent Solutions, the Debtors' claims and noticing agent in
these chapter 11 cases, located at
www.omniagentsolutions.com/Fairway, an addendum to the Sale Notice
containing such information. The Bid Protection Objection is
within seven calendar days after service of the Sale Notice or
relevant Additional Stalking Horse Notice, as applicable.
The salient terms of the Bidding Procedures are:
a. Bid Deadline: Feb. 28, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. (ET)
b. Initial Bid: Unless the Bid includes a Credit Bid or a
Landlord Bid, the Bid is based on an all-cash offer, including, in
the case of a bid for all or any part of the Stalking Horse Package
or any Additional Stalking Horse Package, sufficient cash
consideration to pay the Termination Payment or any Additional
Termination Payment and to meet the Minimum Overbid Amount.
c. Deposit: 10% of the proposed purchase price
d. Auction: The Auction for Stalking Horse Package (if other
Qualified Bids received for Stalking Horse Package); or (ii) Sale
Hearing for sale of Stalking Horse Package to Stalking Horse Bidder
(if no other Qualified Bids received for Stalking Horse Package) is
set for March 10, 2020. The Auction for the Other Assets is set
for March 11, 2020. The auction will be conducted at the offices
of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, 767 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY
10153, or such other time and place as the Debtors, after
consultation with the Baseline Bidder and the Consultation Parties,
may notify Qualified Bidders who have submitted Qualified Bids.
e. Bid Increments: TBD
f. Sale Hearing: March 26, 2020
g. Sale Objection Deadline: March 19, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. (ET)
h. In connection with the sale of all or a portion of the
Assets, a person or entity may seek to credit bid all or a portion
of their secured claims for their respective collateral pursuant to
section 363(k) of the Bankruptcy Code.
i. Subject to the Debtors' discretion to consider such bids,
any bid submitted by a landlord for the purchase of one or more of
such landlord's own Locations may include a purchase price composed
of a (i) cash component, and (ii) a non-cash component that
represents a valid and undisputed “credit” for any unpaid
amounts validly due under the lease for such Location. A Landlord
Credit will be applied to reduce the cash consideration for the
applicable Location. Landlord Bids must be accompanied by a
Deposit in an amount equal to 10% of only the cash component of
such Bid.
Within two business days after entry of the Bidding Procedures
Order, the Debtors will file with the Bankruptcy Court, serve the
Sale Notice on the Sale Notice Parties.
In connection with a Sale Transaction, the Debtors may seek to
assume and assign to the Successful Bidders (or their designated
assignee(s)) certain Contracts and Leases. The Assumption and
Assignment Procedures set forth herein are designed to, among other
things, govern the Debtors' provision of Adequate Assurance
Information and notice of Cure Costs to relevant Counterparties.
The Cure Objection Deadlines are: at least seven calendar days
after service of such notice, or less in the case of a Supplemental
Assumption and Assignment Notice to the extent necessary, but in
each case no less than three calendar days before the applicable
Sale Hearing.
The proposed Sale Orders provide that the sales of the Locations
will be free and clear of all liens, claims, encumbrances, and
other interests except for those Permitted Liens, including leases
and subleases, and Assumed Liabilities, as specified in the
Stalking Horse Agreement.
In light of the current circumstances and financial condition of
the Debtors, they believe that in order to maximize value and
preserve jobs, the sale of the Acquired Assets pursuant to the Sale
Transaction must be consummated as soon as practicable.
Accordingly, the Debtors ask that the Bidding Procedures Order and
the Sale Order be effective immediately upon entry of each such
order and that the 14-day stay periods under Bankruptcy Rules
6004(h) and 6006(d) be waived.
A copy of the Bidding Procedures and the APA is available at
https://tinyurl.com/vjrx2wv from PacerMonitor.com free of charge.
About Fairway Group
Fairway Group -- https://www.fairwaymarket.com/ -- is a food
retailer operating 14 supermarkets across the New York, New Jersey
and Connecticut tri-state area, including two with freestanding
wine and liquor stores (the Stamford and Pelham locations) and two
with in-store wine and liquor stores (the Woodland Park and Paramus
locations). The company's flagship store is located at Broadway
and West 74th Street, on the Upper West Side of Manhattan,
featuring a cafe, Sur la Route, and state of the art cooking
school. Fairway's stores emphasize an extensive selection of
fresh, natural, and organic products, prepared foods, and
hard-to-find specialty and gourmet offerings, along with a full
assortment of conventional groceries.
Fairway Group Holdings Corp. and 25 affiliated companies sought
Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 20-10161) on
Jan. 23, 2020.
In the petitions signed by CEO Abel Porter, the Debtors were
estimated to have $100 million to $500 million in assets and
liabilities.
Judge James L. Garrity, Jr., is assigned to the cases.
The Debtors tapped Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP as legal counsel;
Peter J. Solomon and Mackinac Partners, LLC as financial advisor;
and Omni Agent Solutions as claims, noticing and solicitation
agent.
FEDERAL INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Class Suit by Mesa Laboratories
------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry P. Schiffer -- larry.schiffer@squirepb.com -- of Squire
Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that here's a case where a medical lab sends unsolicited
faxes to dozens of dentists promoting its sterilization services
and gets sued in a class action by one of those dentists who did
not appreciate having the unsolicited faxes consume his ink and
toner. Naturally, the lab sends the case to its insurance company
to defend and indemnify the lab in the TCPA class action. No go
says the insurer.
So when the lab settles the case, it sues the insurance company for
breach of contract, bad faith and improper denial of an insurance
claim. No go says the insurer and a motion to dismiss is filed.
That motion was granted.
In Mesa Laboratories, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., No. 19 C 2340,
2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13660 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 28, 2020), the lab's
insurance policy had two pretty common exclusions. The first was
the Intended or Expected Exclusion. Under this exclusion, the
policy does not apply to injury or damages arising out of acts
intended by the insured or that would be expected from the
standpoint of a reasonable person in the circumstances of the
insured to cause injury or damage.
The second exclusion was the Information Exclusion. Under this
exclusion, the policy does not apply to any damages or expenses
arising out of any actual or alleged or threatened violation of the
TCPA or any similar regulatory or statutory law.
Now, under Seventh Circuit jurisprudence, an insurer that denies a
duty to defend based on an exclusionary clause has the burden of
proving that the claim fails within the exclusion and the
application of the exclusionary clause must be clear and free from
doubt (citations omitted). As the court stated, if the lab
anticipated that its fax-blast would squander the dentist's paper
and toner, the insurance company is off the hook based on the first
exclusion.
Based on Seventh Circuit law holding that senders of junk faxes
know exactly how faxes deplete recipients consumables and on the
language of the lab's fax, which touted an exclusive offer for new
customers and encouraged recipients to submit their contact
information to get started, making it was clear that the dentist
did not invite the faxes, the court had no trouble finding that the
insurance company had no duty to defend the lab in the TCPA class
action. As the court said, "[i]t follows that [the lab], like any
other sender of junk faxes, expected to harm the recipients by
depleting their ink and paper."
Even if the Expected or Intended Exclusion did not bar the lab's
claim, said the court, the Information Exclusion would. Thus, the
double-exclusion whammy hit the lab and deprived it of coverage.
The lab pressed the issue on its common law claims (it conceded
that the TCPA claim was expressly excluded), but the court found
that those claims were also covered by the Information Exclusion.
That's because most of the time, plaintiffs supplement TCPA claims
with common law analogues, which if the lab's argument was
accepted, would make the Information Exclusion rarely apply.
Here, the court found that because all of the dentist's claims
refer to the same underlying facts, and because that conduct
allegedly violated the TCPA, the common law claims "arise out of"
the lab's alleged TCPA violation, triggering the Information
Exclusion. That exclusion, also relieved the insurance company of
any obligation to defend or indemnify the lab.
At the end, judgment on the pleadings was granted in favor of the
insurer and the complaint was dismissed. No coverage for the TCPA
settlement based on the two exclusions. [GN]
FIG CAPITAL LLC: Abante Rooter Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fig Capital, LLC and Does
1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00456 (N.D.
Cal., January 22, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory
damages, treble damages and all other relief for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Fig Capital is a business loan financing company while Abante
Rooter and Plumbing is a rooting and plumbing business in
Emeryville, California. Abante claims to have received calls from
the Defendant using an automatic telephone dialing system offering
its services. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (877) 206-4741
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
FRESH HARVEST: Court OKs $1MM Amended Settlement in Olivo Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order granting Parties' Joint Motion for
Approval of Amended Settlement Agreement in the case captioned
LOURDES OLIVO, Plaintiff, v. FRESH HARVEST, INC. et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02153-L-WVG (S.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff Lourdes Olivo was a seasonal hourly farmworker employed
by Defendants to work in the lettuce fields in the Imperial Valley
and in the vicinity of Yuma, Arizona. Plaintiff alleges wrongful
termination. Plaintiff alleges failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay contractual wages
due, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, failure to timely
pay all wages due upon termination, and adverse employment action
in violation of California public policy.
The parties in the case filed a Joint Motion for Approval of
Amended Settlement Agreement pursuant to California Labor Code
Section 2699(1)(2).
Monetary Terms
Under the proposed settlement, Defendants are to pay $1 million
into a non-reversionary settlement fund to be distributed according
to a plan of distribution as follows:
1. Payment to Simpluris, Inc. of $11,000 for claim administration.
If actual claim administration expenses exceed $11,000, the claim
administrator may receive up to $15,000 based on an itemized
accounting.
2. Payment to Plaintiff within ten business days of settlement
approval in the sum of $45,000 for her underpaid wages, damages,
penalties, and interest.
3. Payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency ("LWDA") within ten business days of settlement approval of
$41,250 for the LWDA's share of PAGA civil penalties, representing
75% of total PAGA civil penalties awarded under the settlement.
4. Allocation of no less than $698,750 for pro rata payments to
Other Aggrieved Employees who submit claims, of which $13,750
consists of the employees' total portion of PAGA civil penalties,
and the remainder consists of their underpaid wages, liquidated
damages, and waiting time penalties. The amount due each employee
is calculated according to a formula in the distribution plan and
pro rated based on the number of weeks the employee worked for
Defendants. Payments to Other Aggrieved Employees are to be made in
two installments: (1) $500 per employee within 30 days of verifying
the employee's claim; and (2) the remaining portion at the end of
the claims period.
5. Subject to Court approval, Plaintiff's attorneys are to receive
up to $200,000 for fees and costs within ten business days of
settlement approval. If the Court approves a higher sum, up to a
total of $330,000, any excess over $200,000 is to be paid to the
extent settlement funds remain available after payment to Other
Aggrieved Employees.
6. Any remaining funds are to be deposited with the LWDA as
additional civil penalties.
Releases
The proposed settlement includes two release provisions, the Mutual
Release in the body of the Amended Agreement, and the Release of
Claims form for signature by each Other Aggrieved Employee who
submits a claim.
Notice
Plaintiff has complied with the PAGA's notice requirement, by
submitting the proposed settlement to the LWDA. The LWDA has not
responded.
Claim Submission and Payment
Other Aggrieved Employees have until one year and 30 days after the
approval of the proposed settlement to submit their claims by
providing one of several forms of identification, filling in the
claim form and signing the Release of Claims.
EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
This action was filed as a PAGA representative action rather than
as a class action under Rule 23 of Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The PAGA empowers employees to sue on behalf of
themselves and other aggrieved employees to recover civil penalties
previously recoverable only by the Labor Commissioner.
Before bringing a civil action for statutory penalties, an employee
must comply with Labor Code section 2699.3 by providing notice of
the alleged violations and the factual basis for the claims to the
employer and the LWDA. If, as here, the LWDA does not wish to
investigate or does not timely issue a citation, the employee may
proceed with the action for civil penalties.
A relatively small portion of the proposed settlement is allocated
to the LWDA for PAGA civil penalties ($55,000 out of $1 million).
However, the amount may be increased, if the total claims submitted
do not exceed the total allocated amount for Other Aggrieved
Employees' claims after paying all attorneys' fees and costs
approved by the Court.
Even if the LWDA payment is ultimately not increased, the monetary
terms of the proposed settlement accomplish the PAGA's goals. The
PAGA was enacted to ensure enforcement of labor laws in the absence
of sufficient resources for enforcement by government agencies and
to deter future violations by means of significant civil penalties.
Finally, the LWDA had an opportunity but chose not to weigh in on
the proposed settlement. Accordingly, the Court finds that the
proposed settlement of the PAGA claim for civil penalties,
including allocation of funds to the LWDA, is reasonable.
Accordingly, claims for underpaid wages, liquidated damages and
waiting time penalties on behalf of Other Aggrieved Employees are
outside the scope of a PAGA representative action. The same relief,
however, could have been secured by the California Labor
Commissioner under sections 558 and 1197.1 on behalf of Other
Aggrieved Employees or by Other Aggrieved Employees themselves
through a civil action under section 1194. Rather than rejecting
the proposed settlement to the extent it provides for
victim-specific relief, the Court construes it as an offer to each
Other Aggrieved Employee to settle his or her individual claims,
which each employee can individually accept by filing a claim and
singing a Release of Claims, or reject by not responding.
Accordingly, the joint motion for approval of the Amended Agreement
is granted. Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees and costs in
the amount of up to $330,000 is granted. Attorneys' fees and costs
are to be disbursed according to the procedure provided in the
amended settlement agreement.
A full-text copy of the District Court's November 25, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/rvah9rt from Leagle.com
Lourdes Olivo, Plaintiff, represented by Cynthia L. Rice -
crice@crla.org - California Rural Legal Assistance & Mario G.
Martinez - mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com - Martinez Aguilasocho &
Lynch, APLC.
Fresh Harvest Inc, an Arizona Corporation & Valley Harvesting and
Packing, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendants, represented by
Jennifer M. Schermerhorn -jschermerhorn@laborcounselors.com -
Dowling Aaron Incorporated, Anthony Christopher Oceguera -
aoceguera@laborcounselors.com - Dowling Aaron Incorporated,
Michael Christopher Saqui - mcs@laborcounselors.com - Dowling Aaron
Incorporated & Rebecca Ashley Hause-Schultz -
rhause-schultz@laborcounselors.com - Dowling Aaron Incorporated.
Seco Packing, a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Daniel Harvey Qualls -Daniel.Qualls@lewisbrisbois.com - Lewis
Brisbois Bisgarrd & Smith LLP, Joseph Richard Lordan -
Joseph.Lordan@LewisBrisbois.com - Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
LLP & Vi N. Applen - Vi.Applen@lewisbrisbois.com - Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith.
GENERAL MOTORS: Casey Files Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors, LLC.
The case is styled as Rebecca Casey, individually, and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. General
Motors, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00299-WQH-MSB (S.D. Cal.,
Feb. 18, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed pursuant to the Diversity-Other Contract.
General Motors Company, commonly referred to as General Motors, is
an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that
designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and
vehicle parts, and sells financial services, with global
headquarters in Detroit's Renaissance Center.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Morris Rose, Esq.
Law Office of Robert Starr
23901 Calabasas Rd. #2072
Calabasas, CA 91302
Tel: (818) 225-9040
Fax: (818) 225-9042
Email: starrlawadam@yahoo.com
GETSWIFT: Acquires Stake in Logo for EUR5.5MM Amid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Ogg, writing for Business News Australia, reports that a
pending class action has failed to push software company GetSwift
(ASX: GSW) off the acquisition path as it seeks to cement its
footprint in the European market.
The company has purchased a majority stake in Serbia-based
information and communications technology (ICT) firm Logo d.o.o.
for EUR5.5 million (AUD$9.1 million).
GetSwift's expansion comes a year after buying two US businesses
Delivery BIZ Pro and Scheduling+ for $8.2 million, catering to the
North American market where the majority of new customers were
acquired in the 2019 fiscal year.
The move also comes 12 months after the group set up its second
development centre in the Serbian capital Belgrade to service
customers in Europe and the Middle East.
Now with a combined company of 200 staff, the acquisition will help
GetSwift become a one-stop-shop in Software as a Service (SaaS)
logistics and technical services with added offerings including
data centers, communications infrastructure and Infosec
(information security).
GetSwift management believes this will allow the company to work
with larger enterprise clients and accelerate its global
expansion.
GetSwift CEO Bane Hunter and chief operating officer Robert
Bardunias will join logo's supervisory board as chairman and vice
chairman respectively.
Meanwhile, the Melbourne-based group is set to face a class action
in the Federal Court on 17 August in relation to ASX announcements
made in 2017 about high-profile deals that sent GSW stock
skyrocketing.
However, fewer than half the contracts from these agreements
actually led to revenue, leading to a mass sell-off and share price
drop in February 2018. [GN]
GOOGLE: AGs, Class Action Watchdog Protest Cy Pres-Only Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that back in March
2018, Google was trying to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court not to
take a look at so-called cy pres settlements in class actions,
which deliver cash to charities instead of class members. The class
action watchdog Ted Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness,
had petitioned the justices to use an $8.5 million Google privacy
class action settlement (869 F.3d 737) - in which all the money was
slated to go to nonprofits rather than offering pennies to millions
of purported class members - to determine whether cy pres-only
settlements comply with the federal rule that requires class action
settlements to be fair, reasonable and adequate. One of Google's
primary arguments against Supreme Court review, as I told you at
the time, was that the justices need not bother with the issue
because cy pres-only settlements were already a dying breed. Google
acknowledged that cy pres remained a feature of class settlements,
but said that after years of appellate skepticism, lawyers had, in
the main, learned to resort to cy pres payouts to nonprofits only
after making all feasible payments to class members.
The Supreme Court, as you may remember, granted review of Frank v.
Gaos despite Google's opposition, but ended up delaying a reckoning
(139 S.Ct. 1041) for cy pres-only settlements because of concerns
that plaintiffs in the underlying privacy class action didn't have
standing to sue.
Google has since proved that its report of the imminent death of cy
pres-only class actions was premature, agreeing to just such a deal
in its $13 million settlement of class action allegations that
Street View vehicles improperly intercepted class members' wireless
electronic communications. According to a motion for final approval
of the settlement, filed in November by class counsel at Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll, Spector Roseman & Kodroff and Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, everything left over from the $13
million, after attorneys' fees, incentive payments to named
plaintiffs and administrative costs, will be divvied up among nine
non-profits that have demonstrated a commitment to protecting and
promoting internet privacy.
But Ted Frank isn't going away either. On Jan. 20, his firm, the
Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, filed an objection to the
settlement on behalf of class member David Lowery, a musician (he
founded the bands Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven and has produced
albums for the Counting Crows) who said he's not happy that class
money is slated to be directed to a group that he considers to be
hostile to copyright holders.
Nine state attorneys general also filed a protest to the cy
pres-only Street View settlement in an amicus brief that argues the
deal is a "stark" illustration of the inequity of these deals for
absent class members. "Put simply, in this settlement, class
members, who are already at a disadvantage in the class action
settlement process, release their claims in exchange for nothing,"
the AGs' brief said.
Class counsel in the Street View case said in their preliminary
approval brief that it's simply not feasible to identify all of the
millions of people who are potentially members of the class.
Ascertaining class membership, the brief said, would require
combing through 300 million frames of data in order to associate
the data to the electronic addresses of prospective class members'
routers or other internet devices – many of which have been
discarded because the class period ends back in 2010. At best, the
approval brief said, the arduous process of identifying millions of
class members would result in minuscule payments that
disproportionately reward people who happen to have saved outdated
equipment. In those rare circumstances, class counsel argued, a cy
pres-only settlement is the best way to benefit the class as a
whole and advance the goals of the litigation.
"Rather than spending the bulk of the settlement fund to identify
absent class members and administer claims that at best would
benefit a tiny fraction of the class, the cy pres mechanism uses as
much of the fund as possible to benefit the entire class by funding
Internet privacy watchdogs and educators," the brief said.
Class counsel Daniel Small of Cohen Milstein, Jeffrey Kodroff of
Spector Roseman and Elizabeth Cabraser of Lieff Cabraser did not
respond to my email requesting comment. Google counsel Brian Willen
of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati referred me to Google's press
office, which did not respond to my email about objections by Frank
and the state AGs. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San
Francisco granted preliminary approval of the settlement in October
but did not write an opinion analyzing the cy pres issue, merely
signing an order drafted by class counsel. Until Jan. 20's filings
by Frank and the state AGs, no class members had objected to the
Street View settlement.
Frank's client, Lowery, said he is a member of the class because he
used an unencrypted wireless network during the class period, when
he worked at a recording studio in Virginia that has been viewable
on Google Maps and Street View since 2009.
Frank argued in his brief for Lowery that class counsel prematurely
concluded that it's not feasible to distribute recovery to class
members. Prospective class members can identify themselves through
sworn affidavits, Frank said. And given the low claims rates in
most class actions, it might turn out that dividing the $13 million
settlement (less fees and costs) to actual claimants results in
payments of more than mere pennies.
"The relevant question then is whether it would be practicable to
distribute the available $13 million settlement fund to
self-identifying class members through a claims-made process," the
objector's brief said. "The answer is indisputably yes." (The brief
said that if Frank and his client are wrong and it's truly
impossible to ascertain class membership then the class should not
be certified and settled.)
The brief advanced several other arguments, protesting the proposed
$4 million fee award to class counsel, scrutinizing purported
connections between the proposed cy pres recipients, Google and
plaintiffs lawyers' and asserting that the cy pres distribution
violates objector Lowery's First Amendment right against compelled
speech because it uses money that belongs to him, as a class
member, to support groups he does not approve of.
Interestingly, Frank offered a handy compendium for his detractors
in the class action bar in a 25-page declaration in which he
preemptively discloses all of the criticism that's been leveled
against him in previous cases. (The declaration is so
up-to-the-minute that it includes Frank's rejoinder to U.S.
District Judge Thomas Thrash of Atlanta, who lumped him in with
"serial objectors" in an opinion last month in the Equifax privacy
class action.) Frank urged Judge Breyer to disregard "these
irrelevant ad hominem attacks." [GN]
GREEN SOLUTION: Katt Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------
The Green Solution, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as David Katt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Green Solution, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00420-KLM (D. Colo., Feb. 19, 2020).
The Green Solution is one of Colorado's largest marijuana
dispensary chains, and it's expanded into four other states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
Marcus & Zelman, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Tel: (732) 695-3282
Email: ari@marcuszelman.com
GREEN STAR CAPITAL: Faces Telemarketing Suit From Abante Rooter
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. GREEN STAR CAPITAL
SOLUTIONS, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of
them, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01465 (C.D. Cal., February 13,
2020) is a class action against Defendant for invading Plaintiff's
privacy by contacting on Plaintiff's cellular telephone that
violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Defendant illegally contacted Plaintiff
and Class members via their telephones for solicitation purposes,
thereby invading their privacy whose telephone numbers were on the
National Do-Not-Call Registry.
Green Star Capital Solutions, Inc. is a business financing company
in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: 323-306-4234
Facsimile: 866-633-0228
H&M: Court Tosses Summary Judgment Bids in Lao Case
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order denying both Plaintiff's and Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned SER LAO,
Plaintiff, v. H&M HENNES & MAURITZ, L.P., Defendant, Case No.
5:16-cv-00333-EJD (N.D. Cal.).
Both parties have moved for partial summary judgment on liability
over a security check policy.
This matter is a wage and hour class action against the clothing
retailer H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P. (H&M) wherein Plaintiff, a
former employee of H&M, contends that H&M violated various state
laws by (1) requiring employees to undergo an off-the-clock
security check before leaving their stores and (2) paying final
wages to separated employees with Money Network ATM cards without
first obtaining the employees' consent.
Plaintiff's claims are based on California law. Plaintiff's second
and third causes of action are for failure to pay minimum wages and
failure to pay overtime wages for the off-the-clock time employees
must spend on the security checks.
Legal Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate where the moving party shows that
no genuine dispute as to any material fact exists and that it is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Where the party moving for
summary judgment will bear the ultimate burden of proof at trial,
that party must prove each element essential of the claims upon
which it seeks judgment by undisputed facts in order to prevail.
IWC Order No. 2001-7 defines hours worked as the time during which
an employee is subject to the control of an employer, and includes
all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether
or not required to do so. Hours worked" by an employee are
compensable.
H&M's Motion
H&M argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because it only
requires employees who bring a bag to undergo a security check
before leaving. H&M asks this court to adopt the holding of Frlekin
v. Apple Inc., 2015 WL 6851424, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2015),
where another court in this district found that "plaintiffs could
all freely choose not to bring bags to work, thereby avoiding
Apple's restrictions during exit searches. That free choice is
fatal to their claims that time spent waiting for bag checks was
compensable.
In other words, because employees choose whether to bring a bag to
work, they are not under the control of their employer if their
employer institutes a bag-check policy. This court, though, need
not decide whether to follow Frlekin because there is a genuine
dispute as to whether the Security Check Policy requires all
employees to undergo a visual inspection, or only employees who
bring a bag to undergo a bag check. Various witnesses have given
conflicting testimony on this point, and it is not for this court
to weigh that evidence at this stage in the proceedings.
H&M's motion is denied, rules the Court.
Plaintiff's Motion
Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on the theory that H&M
requires all employees to undergo an off-the-clock visual
inspection at the end of their shift or when closing a store, which
amounts to H&M exercising control over the employees under
California law. Therefore, Plaintiff argues that it is entitled to
summary judgment. H&M counters that under Troester, 5 Cal. 5th at
484, and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez v. Nike Retail
Servs., Inc., 928 F.3d 810, 818 (9th Cir. 2019) (applying
Troester), the time spent on the security checks was so brief
and/or irregular as to not warrant relief. Plaintiff argues that
the holdings of Troester and Rodriguez do not allow for such a
defense.
Plaintiff misreads those cases. In Troester, the California Supreme
Court left open whether there are wage claims involving employee
activities that are so irregular or brief in duration that
employers may not be reasonably required to compensate employees
for the time spent on them. And in Rodriguez, the Ninth Circuit
found that the Troester holding does not require employers to
account for split-second absurdities,' and it might not apply in
cases where work is so irregular that it is unreasonable to expect
the time to be recorded.
Thus, irregular security checks may not be compensable. The court
finds that whether the security checks are too brief or irregular
to warrant relief cannot be decided on summary judgment.
Plaintiff's motion is also denied, rules the Court.
A full-text copy of the District Court's November 25, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/r2d98rw from Leagle.com.
Ser Lao, as an individual and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis Sangwon Hyun -
dhyun@hyunlegal.com - Hyun Legal APC, Kristen Michelle Agnew -
kagnew@diversitylaw.com - Diversity Law Group, APC, Kwanporn
Tulyathan -ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com - Diversity Law Group, Larry
W. Lee -lwlee@diversitylaw.com - Diversity Law Group, P.C., Max
William Gavron -mgavron@diversitylaw.com - Diversity Law Group &
Nicholas Rosenthal -nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com Diversity Law
Group.
H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., a New York limited partnership,
Defendant, represented by Alma Pinan
- apinan@manatt.com - Manatt, Phelps, Phillips, LLP, Eve L. Torres
, Manatt, Phelps & Andrew Lee Satenberg - asatenberg@manatt.com -
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP.
HENIG FURS: Taylor Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Henig Furs, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Todd
Taylor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Henig Furs, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-00044-WMR (N.D. Ga., Feb. 19, 2020).
Henig Furs is a manufacturer and producer of traditional or
contemporary furs and leathers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
The Oaks Firm
3895 Brookgreen Pt.
Decatur, GA 30034
Tel: (404) 725-5697
Fax: (775) 320-3695
Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com
HONEYWELL INT'L: Judge Tosses Leaky Water Heater Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alan J. Lazarus, Esq. -- alan.lazarus@faegredrinker.com -- and
Kaitlyn E. Stone, Esq. -- kaitlyn.stone@faegredrinker.com -- of
Faegre Drinker, in an article for The National Law Review, report
that a New Jersey federal judge recently applied Tennessee and
California law in dismissing a proposed class action concerning
allegedly leaky water heater sensors/valves (valves) made by
Honeywell International Inc. The decision provides a point-by-point
explanation of how superficial allegations of product defect fail
to satisfy federal pleading standards under the substantive product
liability laws of both states.
In Butera v. Honeywell International, Inc., Civil Action No.
18-13417, the named plaintiffs were a resident of Tennessee and a
resident of California whose water heaters began leaking six years
after purchase. The plaintiffs filed a putative class action
claiming that Honeywell's hot water heater valves were defective.
The plaintiffs alleged that the valves featured a plastic
(thermowell) casing that "prematurely erodes" and deteriorates,
allowing water leakage. They asserted claims under Tennessee's
Products Liability Act (TPLA) and causes of action under California
common law, the California Commercial Code, and California's Unfair
Competition Law statute (UCL), sounding in breach of express and
implied warranty, negligence, strict product liability and consumer
fraud. Honeywell moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The
court applied the laws of each plaintiff's home state to their
respective claims.
Tennessee Product Liability Act Claims
The Tennessee plaintiff alleged that the water heaters were
defectively designed and that Honeywell failed to provide adequate
warnings, in violation of the TPLA. The district court held that
the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to generate an
inference that the product was defective or unreasonably dangerous.
The court held that the allegation that the thermowell casing
prematurely erodes did not show that the product was defective. The
plaintiff's failure to allege facts showing that use of the plastic
made the product "per se defective or unreasonably dangerous"
required dismissal of this claim.
California Claims
The California plaintiff's multiple claims fared no better. The
plaintiff alleged that Honeywell breached its express warranty that
the valves were free from defects and "it would replace all
defective parts," and breached the implied warranty that the valves
were fit for their ordinary use. The court dismissed both. The
plaintiff did not provide Honeywell an opportunity to repair the
water heater, as required for breach of an express warranty, and
the plaintiff's excuses that such an opportunity would be futile
were speculative, unsupported by any facts. The plaintiff only
alleged that "his water heater began leaking," failing to raise an
inference that it leaked due to the defect -- deterioration of the
thermowell -- thereby failing to sufficiently allege proximate
causation. Moreover, that the plaintiff's water heater began
leaking six years after purchase did not state a claim for breach
of warranty. In addition, the express warranty had expired, and the
plaintiff failed to support the bare allegation that the warranty
period was "unconscionably short."
The court also found both warranty claims failed for lack of
alleged privity between the plaintiff, a retail purchaser, and
Honeywell, a component part manufacturer. The court rejected the
plaintiff's claim that he fell within a third-party beneficiary
exception to the privity requirement. The express warranty claim
also failed for lack of reliance, as the plaintiff failed to allege
he had read and relied on the warranty.
The plaintiff's negligence and strict liability claims also failed
for lack of any inference of defect and causation. The court noted
that the failure of a product with an alleged 6- to 10-year useful
life after 6 years did not support a claim of defect, and again,
the failure to tie the leak to the allegedly defective valve
resulted in a failure to adequately allege proximate causation. And
there was no claim stated for failure to warn due to the absence of
actual or constructive knowledge the valve would prematurely
deteriorate; the allegations that Honeywell was "a member of the
water heater component industry and eventually replaced its plastic
thermowells with metal thermowells" were insufficient. Moreover,
the plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that Honeywell had a
duty to warn that a six-year-old water heater might leak.
Finally, the court turned to the plaintiff's consumer fraud claim
under the UCL. Because this was a fraud-based claim, the plaintiff
had to meet the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 9(b). The UCL required the plaintiff to allege that
Honeywell knew of the defect at the time of sale, and as discussed
above, that allegation was lacking. The plaintiff's effort to
overcome this gap with an allegation that Honeywell insufficiently
tested the valve failed, as the allegation was conclusory.
Butera demonstrates the need in a component part defect case for
allegations that tie the failure of the product to the alleged
defect in the component. Here, defense counsel was able to exploit
the failure to sufficiently allege that water heater leakage after
six years of use was due to the degradation of the materials in the
valve to put an early end to a would-be class action under both
Tennessee and California law. [GN]
HP INC: Electrical Workers Pension Fund Files Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HP Inc. The case is
styled as Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W., on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HP
Inc., Dion J. Weisler, Catherine A. Lesjak and Steven J. Fieler,
Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-01253 (N.D., Cal., Feb. 19, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as
Securities/Commodities filed over Securities Violation.
The Hewlett-Packard Company, or Hewlett-Packard, was an American
multinational information technology company headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
INTERACTIVE MARKETING: Faces Espinosa Suit Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Reinaldo Espinosa, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. INTERACTIVE MARKETING SERVICES, INC. D/B/A
BROADBAND INTERACTIVE, Case No. CACE-20-002906 (Fla. Cir., Broward
Cty., Feb. 17, 2020), arises from the Defendant's policy and
practice of not paying the Plaintiff all of his earned compensation
from the disposition of Comcast customers' collection accounts.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's policy and practice is
to deny earned wages to its field technicians through the
Defendant's failure to pay its field technicians all compensation
due and payable to the field technicians on the disposition of
Comcast collection accounts. The Defendant's deliberate failure to
pay the Plaintiff his earned compensation is a violation of the
State of Florida's unpaid wages common law, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff work as field technicians for the Defendant in the
State of Florida.
The Defendant operates a business focused on the collection of
overdue Comcast's customers' accounts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Main No: 813-224-0431
Direct Dial: 813-337-7992
Facsimile: 813-229-8712
Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
jcornell@wfclaw.com
rcooke@wfclaw.com
- and -
Scott M. Weaver, Esq.
THE WEAVER LAW FIRM, P.A.
801 West Bay Dr., Suite 426
Largo, FL 33770
Direct No. 727-3 16-5330
Facsimile: 727-499-7322
Email: scott@theweaverlawfmn.com
INVALUABLE LLC: Cruz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------
Invaluable, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael
Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Invaluable, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01463
(S.D. N.Y., Feb. 19, 2020).
Invaluable, LLC provides e-commerce services. The Company operates
an online auction marketplace of fine and decorative arts,
antiques, collectibles, and estate sales.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
J.P. MORGAN: Taschler Sues Over Illegal Phone Calls
---------------------------------------------------
TASHIA TASCHLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-1070 (N.D. Ill., February 13, 2020) alleges that
Defendant robo-called her numerous times in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff began receiving numerous
unlawful phone calls from Chase, using automated telephone dialing
system or pre-recorded voice calls and without prior express
consent, in an attempt to recover a debt relating to Robert
Taschler, who was Plaintiff's deceased grandfather.
Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated consumers, who have been harmed and aggravated
by Defendant's illegal conduct, against Defendant seeking for
financial damages and injunctive relief.
J.P. Morgan Chase Bank is a national banking association. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
Theodore H. Kuyper, Esq.
KEOGH LAW, LTD.
55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel: (312)726-1092
Fax: (312)726-1093
Emails: keith@keoghlaw.co
tkuyper@keoghlaw.com
JUUL LABS: Cooper Product Liability Suit Removed to N.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Ethan Cooper, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.,
Case No. C2020001, was removed from the Texas District Court for
Hood County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas on Jan. 31, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01238-WHO to the
proceeding.
In his Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts twelve counts against JLI,
and two against Altria (noted with an asterisk): (1) Negligence*;
(2) Breach of Implied Warranty; (3) Failure to Warn; (4) Product
Liability (Design Defect); (5) Fraudulent Concealment; (6)
Fraudulent Misrepresentation; (7) Deceptive Trade Practice; (8)
Unjust Enrichment; (9) Violation of California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act; (10) Violation of California Falser Advertising Law;
(11) Violation of California Unfair Competition Law; (12) Civil
Conspiracy*.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
G. Thomas Vick, Jr., Esq.
VICK CARNEY LLP
111 York Avenue
Weatherford, TX 76086
Phone: (817) 596-5533
Email: tvick@vickcarneylaw.com
- and -
Scott A. Powell, Esq.
HARE, WYNN, NEWELL & NEWTON, LLP
2025 Third Avenue North, Suite 800
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (205) 328-5330
Email: scott@hwnn.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew D. Bergman, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
700 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000
Houston, TX 77002-2755
Phone: 713.576.2400
Fax: 713.576.2499
Email: andrew.bergman@arnoldporter.com
- and -
Russel H. Falconer, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2100
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: Telephone: (214) 68-3170
Facsimile: (214) 571-2958
Email: rfalconer@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Austin Schwing, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
555 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
Phone: (415) 393-8210
Facsimile: (415) 374-8458
Email: aschwing@gibsondunn.com
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Erceg Sues over Recording of Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUKA ERCEG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-01153-JCS (N.D. Calif., February 13, 2020) is a class
action brought on behalf of all individuals whose telephone calls
with LendingClub were recorded by LendingClub without their
knowledge or consent pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), and
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated California Penal Code
Sec. 632 which prohibits one party to a telephone call from
intentionally recording the conversation without the knowledge or
consent of the other party; and Mass. Gen. Law Ch. 272 Sec. 99
which prohibits one party to a telephone call from willfully
intercepting the contents of any wire or oral communication through
the use of any intercepting device by any person without prior
authorization by all parties to such communication.
LendingClub is a peer-to-peer lending company that operates the
world's largest peer-to-peer lending platform. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Perry Narancic, Esq.
LEXANALYTICA, PC
2225 East Bayshore Road, Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Tel: 650-655-2800
Email: pjn@lexanalytica.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn St., 11th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: 312-214-7900
Emails: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
akeller@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Mark A. Dicello, Esq.
Justin J. Hawal, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
7556 Mentor Avenue
Mentor, OH 44060
Tel: 440-953-8888
Emails: mad@dicellolevitt.com
jhawal@dicellolevitt.com
LIVINGSOCIAL LLC: Cruz Files Suit under ADA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Livingsocial, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael
Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Livingsocial, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01472
(S.D. N.Y., Feb. 19, 2020).
LivingSocial is an online marketplace that allows its registered
users to buy and share things to do in their city. Formerly
headquartered in Washington, D.C., LivingSocial had roughly 70
million members around the world in 2013. The company shrank from a
peak of 4,500 employees in 2011 to about 200 in 2016.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
LLOYD & MCDANIEL: Hurtado Files Suit in Florida
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lloyd & McDaniel,
PLC. The case is styled as Etien Hurtado and Lubena Lorenzo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Lloyd & McDaniel, PLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00110-TPB-MRM (M.D., Fla., Feb. 19, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Lloyd & McDaniel, PLC is a law firm in Louisville, KY.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Sanders Law, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
LYNX PRESSURE: Shortchanges Workers' Overtime Pay, Bradshaw Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Bradshaw, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Lynx Pressure Solutions, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-00085 (W.D. Tex., January 22, 2020), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.
Lynx operates in the oil and gas industry and provides flowback and
completion services at oil wells. Bradshaw recently worked for
Defendant until August 2019 in Pleasanton, Texas performing
flowback work. He claims to have regularly worked more than 8 hours
per day and 40 hours per week but not paid any additional wages for
overtime including failing to include the bonuses in the
calculation of the regular rate of pay. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
MDL 2420: Gordon's Bid for Unredacted Bid Submission Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order denying Objector Gordon Morgan's Motion
for Clarification, to Locate Unredacted Bid and to Order Submission
of Unredacted Bid for Purposes of a Complete Appellate Record in IN
RE: LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Order relates
to the Indirect Purchaser Actions Case No. 4:13-md-02420-YGR (DMR)
(N.D. Cal.).
Objector Gordon Morgan filed his Motion for Clarification, to
Locate Unredacted Bid, and to Order Submission of Unredacted Bid
for Purposes of a Complete Appellate Record.
In his motion, Morgan requests the court unseal a document
submitted by the law firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
(Hagens Berman) in connection with its request to be appointed lead
counsel in this action, the redacted version of which appears at
Docket No. 108-1.
According to the Court, Morgan's motion is both procedurally
defective and substantively inadequate as a basis for reconsidering
the Court's prior Order denying his request to unseal the bid. The
motion is procedurally improper for its failure to comply with
Civil Local Rule 7-9.
Morgan has offered no argument or authority that would support
public filing of the redacted portion of the declaration, much less
one that he could not have presented previously in connection with
his objection to final approval.
Even if Morgan could offer a persuasive reason to require the Court
to unseal or otherwise provide the redacted portion of the document
to him, or include the document the Court could not do so, the
Court says.
Some explication of the chronology of the proceedings is necessary
to explain why.
To the best of the Court's recollection, Hagens Berman submitted
the unredacted version of the declaration to the Court for review
in camera prior to the April 3, 2013 hearing and the Court returned
the in camera submission to Hagens Berman, through the courtroom
deputy, at the hearing. However, the record does not so reflect.
Out of an abundance of caution, given the lack of a definitive
statement in the record, the Court has conducted a thorough search
of its own notes and chambers copies of submissions. The Court has
not located any copy of the in camera submission from Hagens
Berman, electronically docketed or otherwise.
The Court finds no merit in Morgan's request that it order Hagens
Berman to include the redacted portion in the record on appeal. The
Court has established that it did not consider the redacted portion
in reaching its decision to appoint counsel, nor does that redacted
information have any apparent bearing on the Court's determination
of whether the attorneys' fees awarded upon settlement approval
were reasonable, given the procedural history of this case and the
myriad of factors the Court considered in reaching its decision on
what amount of fees would be fair and reasonable upon settlement of
the class action.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED, rules the Court.
A full-text copy of the District Court's November 18, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxx7qe7v Leagle.com.
Kevin Young & Bradley Seldin, Plaintiffs, represented by Jeff D.
Friedman - jefff@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
George W. Sampson , Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jason Allen
Zweig - jasonz@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana
E. Scarlett - shanas@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
& Steve W. Berman - steve@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.
Bruce Sterman, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman , Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steve W. Berman , Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.
Samsung SDI America Inc & Samsung SDI Co Ltd, Defendants,
represented by John Roberti- john.roberti@allenovery.com - Allen &
Overy LLP, Andrew Rhys Davies , Allen & Overy LLP, 1221 Avenue of
the Americas, New York, New York 10020, Bradley Pensyl -
bradley.pensyl@allenovery.com -Allen and Overy LLP, Jacob S.
Pultman – jacob.pullman@allenovery.com - Allen Overy LLP, Michael
S. Feldberg – Michael.feldberg.com - Allen and Overy LLP, Nneka
Ukpai , Allen and Overy LLP,1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York,
New York 10020,& Providence Ebubechi Napoleon –
providence.napoleon@allenovery.com - Allen Overy LLP.
Hitachi Ltd., Defendant, represented by Craig P. Seebald -
cseebald@velaw.com - Vinson & Elkins LLP, Elliott J. Joh -
elliott.joh@squirepb.com - Squire Patton Boggs & Matthew J. Jacobs
-, mjacobs@velaw.com - Vinson & Elkins LLP.
MDL 2792: Morgan's Bid to Strike Expert Declaration Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma issued an Order denying Objector John Douglas Morgan's
Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Untimely Expert Declaration in IN RE:
SAMSUNG TOP-LOAD WASHING MACHINE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL CASES,
MDL Case No. 17-ml-2792-D (W.D. Okla.).
This matter came before the Court on Objector John Douglas Morgan's
Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Untimely Expert Declaration.
Plaintiffs alleged that certain Samsung top-load washing machines
had experienced detachment of their tops from the washing machine
chassis and drain-pump failure during operation.
Objector Morgan filed the Motion to Strike arguing that (1)
Plaintiffs' introduction of the valuation of future benefits
covered by Ms. Lucy P. Allen's Declaration (Allen Declaration) is
violative of Rule 23(h), or in the alternative (2) the Allen
Declaration is inadmissible under Daubert.
The Allen Declaration is consistent with Rule 23(h) as it was filed
in response to Morgan's objections
Objector Morgan urges the Court to disregard the Allen Declaration
when determining the fairness of the settlement and fee requests.
Through the introduction of the Allen Declaration, Objector Morgan
argues, class counsel has changed the basis of their motion for
final approval, violating the rights of absent class members under
Rule 23(h).
Plaintiffs respond that the Allen Declaration was submitted in
response to Morgan's objections. Morgan objected to the proposed
settlement by claiming that the warranties are valueless. The Allen
Declaration responded with a formal valuation.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that any motion for
attorneys' fees be directed to class members in a reasonable
manner. Class members may object to the motion. Rule 54(d)(2)
governs motions for attorneys' fees and provides that a fee
petition must: (1) specify the judgment and the statute, rule, or
other grounds, entitling the movant to the award (2) state the
amount sought or provide a fair estimate of it and (3) disclose, if
the court so orders, the terms of any agreement about fees for the
services for which the claim is made.
While the Court can locate no Tenth Circuit precedent on point, and
the parties cite to none, sister circuits have held that setting
the objector deadline before a fee motion is due under Rule 23(h)
is an abuse of discretion and an error as a matter of law.
This was simply not the case, here. Class counsel met the
requirements of Rule 23(h). They filed their motion for attorneys'
fees nearly eight weeks before the deadline to object. The motion
for attorneys' fees disclosed the amount requested. The motion
explained and defended the lodestar basis for the request and
conceded the Court's broad discretion in evaluating the matter.
Objectors had eight weeks to respond to class counsel's motion for
fees. Morgan, as did others, filed their detailed objections. The
Allen Declaration was then submitted to address the value of the
warranties, plainly because Morgan in his objection placed the
value in issue. After class counsel replied to Morgan's objection
with the Allen Declaration, they did not submit a reimbursement
request for Ms. Allen's fee.
All of this followed the requirements of Rule 23(h). To hold
otherwise would be to hold that class counsel is barred from
substantively replying to objections, necessarily requiring class
counsel to anticipate all possible objections in their fee request.
There is no precedent, binding or otherwise, that requires the
Court to reach such a conclusion.
The Daubert evidentiary standard is not the proper standard to
apply when considering the fairness of a class action settlement
Objector Morgan also argues that the Allen Declaration should be
stricken as it is neither relevant nor reliable under Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993). The
parties dispute the applicability of Daubert in the Court's final
fairness evaluation of a class action settlement.
At least at the class certification stage, the degree of scrutiny
to which expert testimony should be subjected remains unsettled
after Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 354 (2011),
where the Supreme Court pointedly suggested that a full
Daubert-style evaluation is required. Persuasive authority from the
courts of appeals explains that where an expert's opinion is
critical to class certification that is, when expert testimony is
offered to prove satisfaction of one of Rule 23's certification
requirements a Daubert-style inquiry is appropriate.
At the fairness hearing stage, the weight of authority from the
circuits makes just as clear, however, that district courts have
discretion to use whatever is necessary in reaching an informed,
just and reasoned decision
Morgan's motion to strike the Allen Declaration overlooks the
differences between a full trial and a fairness hearing. Gen.
Motors Corp., 497 F.3d at 636. Unlike the expert declarations in
Dukes and the rest, which were critical to class certification, the
Allen Declaration is offered solely to help the Court determine
whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. At this
stage in the proceedings, the judge does not resolve the parties'
factual disputes but merely ensures that the disputes are real and
that the settlement fairly and reasonably resolves the parties'
differences.
The Court, in deciding the final approval of a class action
settlement, has broad discretion over the evidence it may
consider.
The Court finds that: (1) the Allen Declaration is consistent with
Rule 23(h); and, (2) the Daubert evidentiary standard is not the
proper standard to apply in connection with matters considered
regarding the fairness of a class action settlement.
The Court, therefore, rules that Objector Morgan's Motion to Strike
Plaintiffs' Untimely Expert Declaration is DENIED.
A full-text copy of the District Court's November 18, 2019
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wbuqvmu
Leagle.com.
Jerry Wells, on behalf of himself, Vicky Higginbotham, on behalf of
herself, Peter Fraker, on behalf of himself, Katherine Mikrut, on
behalf of herself & Tracy Pronstroller, on behalf of herself,
Plaintiffs, represented by William B. Federman -
WBF@FEDERMANLAW.COM - Federman & Sherwood, Amanda B. Murphy -
abm@federmanlaw.com - Federman & Sherwood, Jason Louis Lichtman
-JLICHTMAN@LCHB.COM - Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, John
P. Zelbst , Zelbst Holmes & Butler, 411 S.W. 6th Street, P.O. Box
365, Lawton, OK 73502-0365 & Joshua D. Wells –
jdw@federmanlaw.com - Federman & Sherwood.
Jerry Wells, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by William B. Federman , Federman & Sherwood, Jason
Louis Lichtman , Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, John P.
Zelbst , Zelbst Holmes & Butler & Joshua D. Wells , Federman &
Sherwood.
Best Buy Co Inc & Lowes Home Center LLC, Defendants, represented by
Elie Salamon - elie.salamon@arnoldporter.com - Arnold & Porter Kaye
Scholer LLP, pro hac vice, Murray E. Abowitz , Doerner Saunders
Daniel & Anderson, 105 N. Hudson Ave.Suite 1000Oklahoma City, OK
73102- 4802, Arthur E. Brown - arthur.brown@arnoldporter.com -
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, pro hac vice & Jonathan E. Green
- jonathan.green@arnoldporter.com - Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer
LLP.
The Home Depot Inc., Defendant, represented by Gerald P. Green ,
Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green, 1109 North Francis,
Oklahoma City, OK 73106, J. Andrew Pratt - apratt@kslaw.com - King
& Spalding, pro hac vice, Kim A. Tran – kim-tran@ogletree.com -
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, Paul Richard Johnson -
pjohnson@kslaw.com - King & Spalding LLP, Robert L. Betts , Pierce
Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green, 1109 North Francis, Oklahoma
City, OK 73106, S. Stewart Haskins - shaskins@kslaw.com - King &
Spalding, pro hac vice, Susan L. Shin , Arnold & Porter Kaye
Scholer LLP, pro hac vice & Murray E. Abowitz , Doerner Saunders
Daniel & Anderson,105 N. Hudson Ave.Suite 1000Oklahoma City, OK
73102- 4802
MIDLAND CREDIT: Lorenzo Files Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Lubena Lorenzo, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00111-JES-MRM (M.D., Fla., Feb. 19, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a financial institution in San
Diego, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Sanders Law, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
MONCTON HOSPITAL: Lawyer Prepping Class Suit Over Induced Labor
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Star reports that a lawyer representing women in a proposed
class-action lawsuit against New Brunswick, Canada's largest health
authority and an obstetrics nurse says hundreds of concerned women
have contacted him.
The lawsuit, which has not been tested in court, alleges nurse
Nicole Ruest improperly gave patients the labour-inducing drug
oxytocin, leading to an unusually high number of emergency
C-sections and instrument-assisted deliveries at the Moncton
Hospital.
"We have been contacted by hundreds of mothers who have expressed
concerns, but as I indicated to the court, not every mother who
underwent an emergency C-section at the Moncton Hospital will be a
class member," John McKiggan, Esq., a Halifax-based medical
malpractice lawyer, said. "It remains to be seen what the actual
class size is."
McKiggan was in court in Moncton on Tuesday, January 28, seeking an
order to obtain information from the hospital. "There is specific
information we believe the hospital has that is relevant to the
issues that the court will need to deal with on certification," he
said.
The judge is expected to rule on that request before the end of
February.
Ruest could not be reached Wednesday for comment, but in a
statement of defence filed with the court, her lawyers reject the
allegation that she was negligent.
"She did not breach any duty of care owed to the plaintiff or to
any proposed class member, nor did she fall below the applicable
standard of care," the document reads. "At all material times, Ms.
Ruest provided nursing care that met or exceeded the applicable
standard of care."
The hospital, part of the Horizon Health Network, also filed a
statement of defence last May.
"The defendant hospital admits that its physicians were becoming
concerned over the increasing number of emergency caesarean
sections and were attempting to determine the reason for the
increase in the number of emergency caesarean sections," the
statement reads. But it denies all other allegations.
The hospital says that Ruest was terminated as an obstetrical
nurse.
The RCMP said in November that one person was arrested and
questioned about the case and is to appear in court in May.
McKiggan said a hearing to determine whether the class action
lawsuit goes ahead will likely be held in December or early in
2021. [GN]
MYERS: Shareholders Fight Ruling in Disclosure Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Liz Main, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that
Myer shareholders who won a landmark class action against the
retail giant are fighting a court ruling that they did not suffer
any financial loss when Myer misled them over the profits it
expected to make in the 2015 financial year.
Last year, the Federal Court of Australia ruled Myer misled or
deceived shareholders over its forecast profits for financial 2015
and breached its continuous disclosure obligations, and ignored
seven opportunities when it could have corrected the profit
guidance.
But in an unexpected twist, despite ruling Myer misled investors,
Justice Jonathan Beach found shareholders had not suffered any
financial loss because sceptical market analysts kept market
consensus lower than the department store's profit guidance.
On Feb. 3, the shareholders' barrister Norman O'Bryan, SC, argued
his clients should be given a second chance to prove they had in
fact suffered a financial loss because of the misleading
announcement.
"I've also found -- on your own expert analysis -- that the actual
share price was factoring in Bloomberg [market] consensus," Justice
Beach said to Mr. O'Bryan.
"So accepting those steps, how do you put the case any shareholders
have suffered loss and damage based upon that counterfactual
disclosure?"
Bloomberg consensus takes an average of what different market
analysts at major investment banks believe a company's forecast
profit will be.
Mr. O'Bryan argued that if Myer had issued corrective disclosures,
that would have pushed the Bloomberg consensus down even further
than it was at the time.
The case revolved around a phone call between then-chief executive
Bernie Brookes and analysts in September 2014 in which Mr Brookes
announced Myer expected its net profit after tax (NPAT) for fiscal
2015 would beat the $98.5 million achieved the previous financial
year.
Despite Mr Brookes' announcement, Myer later issued a forecast
profit downgrade in March 2015 and later reported a profit of $77.5
million, far below what had been promised to investors during the
phone call.
The landmark case was the first time a shareholder class action has
gone all the way to judgment.
'Second bite of the cherry'
Myer's barrister Ian Waller, QC, argued the shareholders should not
be given a second chance to rehash their argument because the court
had already found they hadn't suffered loss based on the evidence
presented by both sides during the trial.
"We say what Mr O'Bryan is doing is seeking to have a second bite
of the cherry in circumstances where evidence was led, submissions
were made and your Honour has made findings," Mr. Waller told
Justice Beach.
Justice Beach said as a "halfway house" solution, a further hearing
in March will be held for the shareholders' legal team to set out
what evidence they intend to rely on.
Mark Elliott, who financially backed the class action through his
business Australian Funding Partners, appeared in court for the
hearing.
Mr. Elliott had originally sued Myer as the lead plaintiff,
litigation funder and lawyer on the case before his case was thrown
out as an abuse of process.
Mr. Waller said Myer may call market analysts to give evidence to
prove its case that shareholders had not lost money.
Speaking outside court after the hearing, Mr Elliott said he was
confident the evidence relied on by Myer shareholders will beat any
testimony from Myer's witnesses.
"We double dare them. And you know how serious a double dare is,"
Mr Elliot said.
Justice Beach will rule on whether the shareholders will be allowed
to lead further evidence they suffered financial damage at a date
yet to be fixed. [GN]
NESTLE USA: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Over Trans Fat Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reports that on January 24, 2020, a
Northern District of California judge denied defendants' motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. In Beasley v. Lucky Stores, Inc. et
al, consumers of Coffee-mate, a line of coffee-creamer products
produced by Nestle USA, Inc. ("Nestle"), brought a putative class
action lawsuit against Nestle and a group of retail stores alleging
that some flavors of Coffee-mate contained, partially hydrogenated
oil, an artificial form of trans fat, even though defendant's
labels included nutrient claims, such as "0g Trans Fat."
In their motion to dismiss, Nestle and the group of retailers
argued that the Plaintiff had claimed to only learn trans fat was
harmful in January 2017, and thus could not have relied on the "0g
Trans Fat" label for his prior purchases. The district judge
rejected defendants' argument and noted that plaintiff's complaint
alleges that he learned at that time that the product "contained an
unsafe food additive," in other words, that the plaintiff learned
trans fat was in the creamer, not that it was harmful. In
addition, the judge found that the plaintiff had adequately pled
that he relied on the packaging's claims. Ultimately, the district
judge stated that the amended complaint adequately noted when and
where the buyer leading the suit bought the product and that he had
relied on the Coffee-mate labeling.
A Nestle representative stated that this ruling is "purely
procedural in nature and is in no way determinative of the merits
of the plaintiff's allegations, which remain unproven." We will
continue to monitor any developments. [GN]
NOBLES COUNTY, MN: Sheriff Can't Detain Prisoners for ICE
---------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Jones, writing for City Pages, reports that Nobles County
Sheriff Kent Wilkening made a habit of keeping certain prisoners
behind bars after they were supposed to be released.
He suspected they might be undocumented immigrants. Wilkening was
holding onto them until Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) could
check their status. That included Rodrigo Esparza, a Worthington
man who was arrested on suspicion of receiving stolen property
(including firearms, jewelry, and some cash) that spring.
Esparza claimed he was a legal resident with a green card, but that
didn't matter. When his family arrived to pay his bond, jail staff
allegedly told them they weren't letting Esparza out no matter
what.
That summer, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Minnesota
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Esparza and a few other
prisoners, who say they were kept in jail days or weeks after they
should have been released.
It's been more than a year since then, with ups and downs,
including a judge slapping Wilkening with a preemptory restraining
order preventing him from holding more people for ICE in the
meantime, and one of the plaintiffs claiming law enforcement was
harassing her by dragging her back to jail without cause.
At last, we have a verdict. No more ICE holds for Wilkening and
Nobles County.
On Jan. 30, Blue Earth District Judge Gregory Anderson determined
Nobles County law enforcement had "failed to perform an official
duty" by keeping the prisoners, as the "ICE 'warrants' at issue do
not comply with Minnesota law to permit further detention."
As Anderson wrote in his decision: "It cannot be seriously argued
that the subjective decision by the sheriff to detain one type of
inmate after the legal basis for their detention has ended…
permits statutory immunity. There is no basis to detain any person,
regardless of their immigration status or even those charged with
or convicted of a heinous offense, after he or she is entitled to
be released at the completion of the sentence or payment of bail or
bond."
As MPR pointed out, Wilkening had previously argued that ICE
detainees posed an added risk to the community. Judge Anderson
wrote there isn't any evidence undocumented folks were any more
dangerous than U.S. citizens. Should we also arbitrarily detain
"drunk drivers," "child molesters," or "burglars"? he asked
Wilkening.
The ruling means Nobles County faces a permanent injunction against
doing this again. It also means the plaintiffs can seek damages for
being deprived of their liberty all those months ago. In a press
release issued by the ACLU, Esparza expressed some pride in his
role in the ruling.
"Someone had to step up and stop this from happening to other
people," he said. [GN]
NYGARD INC: Faces Class Suit over Sexual Assault Allegations
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JANE DOES NOS. 1-10, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PETER J. NYGARD; NYGARD INC.; NYGARD
INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP; and NYGARD HOLDINGS LIMITED, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01288 (S.D.N.Y., February 13, 2020), arises from
the Defendants' participation in a sex trafficking scheme in
violation of the Trafficking Victim Protection Act.
The complaint alleges that Defendant Peter Nygard used his
influence in the fashion industry to entice and recruit underage
girls and women in the U.S., the Bahamas, and elsewhere around the
world with cash payments and false promises of modeling
opportunities in order to engage them in commercial sex acts. He
owned and controlled the companies Nygard Inc., Nygard
International Partnership, and Nygard Holdings Limited, which were
instrumental in knowingly aiding, abetting, facilitating, and
participating in the sex trafficking activities.
Nygard Inc. is a women's apparel distributor with its global
headquarters in New York City.
Nygard International Partnership is a Canadian women's manufacturer
and supplier that has its administrative offices in Winnipeg,
Canada and its global headquarters in New York City.
Nygard Holdings Limited is a Bahamian shell corporation registered
in the Bahamas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Greg G. Gutzler, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
444 Madison Avenue, Fourth Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (646) 933-1000
E-mail: ggutzler@dicellolevitt.com
- and –
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
akeller@dicellolevitt.com
- and –
Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
Robert F. DiCello, Esq.
Justin J. Hawal, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
7556 Mentor Avenue
Mentor, OH 44060
Telephone: (440) 953-8888
E-mail: mad@dicellolevitt.com
rfdicello@dicellolevitt.com
jhawal@dicellolevitt.com
- and –
Lisa D. Haba, Esq.
THE HABA LAW FIRM PA
1220 Commerce Park Drive, Suite 207
Longwood, FL 32779
Telephone: (844) 422-2529
E-mail: lisahaba@habalaw.com
OPERA LTD: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of March 24 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming March 24, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of Opera Limited ("Opera" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: OPRA) investors who acquired: (a) American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's initial public offering commenced on or about July 27,
2018 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (b) securities between July
27, 2018 and January 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact 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 January 16, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report
alleging, among other things, that "Opera's apps are now in black
and white violation of numerous Google [Play Store] rules" on
predatory, short-term lending, and misleading apps and that Opera
had spent $9.5 million to purchase a business already funded and
operated by Opera.
On this news, Opera's share price fell $1.69, or over 18%, to close
at $7.33 per share on January 16, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that 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) Opera's sustainable growth and
market opportunity for its browser applications was significantly
overstated; (2) Defendants' funded, owned, or otherwise controlled
loan services applications and/or businesses relied on predatory
lending practices; (3) all the foregoing, once revealed, were
reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on Opera's
financial prospects, especially with respect to its lending
applications' continued availability on the Google Play Store; and
(4), 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 or otherwise acquired Opera ADSs pursuant and/or
traceable to the IPO and/or securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than March 24, 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]
OUT TECH: Masri Asserts Violation under FDCPA in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Out Tech, Inc. The
case is styled as Jana Masri, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Out Tech, Inc., doing
business as: Bureau of Account Management, Defendant, Case No.
7:20-cv-01366 (S.D., N.Y., Feb. 18, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Out Tech, Inc is categorized under Collection Agencies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Michael Barshay, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Ste 5th Floor
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com
OUTDOOR VOICES: Cruz Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Outdoor Voices Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael
Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Outdoor Voices Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01459
(S.D. N.Y., Feb. 19, 2020).
Outdoor Voices is an American clothing company founded in 2013 by
CEO Tyler Haney in New York City. Headquartered in Austin, it
designs and sells women's and men's athletic apparel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
PAPA JOHN'S: Hubbard Case Stayed Pending Ruling in Durling
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned HUBBARD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PAPA JOHN'S
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 5:19-CV-22-TBR.
(W.D. Ky.), Defendant Papa John's International, Inc. filed a
Motion to Stay Under the First-To-File Rule and to Partially
Dismiss Claims as Time-Barred, as well as a Motion to Stay Under
the First-To-File Rule and Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Claims.
On May 13, 2016, plaintiffs William Durling, Michael Morris, James
Morton, Jr., Richard Sobol, Muhammad Sultan, and Tom Wolff filed a
collective and class action complaint against Papa John's
International ("PJI") in the Southern District of New York. Durling
v. Papa John's International, Inc., No. 7:16-CV-03592 (S.D.N.Y.).
The plaintiffs claimed that PJI "systematically under-reimbursed
its delivery drivers for vehicular wear and tear, gas, and other
driving-related expenses, thereby ensuring that all of PJI's
delivery drivers are effectively paid below minimum wage."
Plaintiffs brought a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") on behalf of "[a]ll persons PJI employed as
a delivery driver during any workweek in the maximum limitations
period." Plaintiff William Durling brought a class action pursuant
to New York Labor Law; Plaintiff Mike Morris brought a class action
pursuant to the Delaware Minimum Wage Act; Plaintiff James Morton,
Jr. brought a class action pursuant to Pennsylvania Wage and Hour
Law; and Plaintiff Tom Wolff brought a class action pursuant to New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law.
On July 20, 2018, the Southern District of New York conditionally
certified a collective action against PJI consisting of those
individuals employed as delivery drivers by corporate owned or
controlled Papa John's stores. On April 18, 2018, plaintiffs moved
to amend their complaint to add Aaron Nelson, Joshua Boyland, and
one other individual as additional named plaintiffs, alleging
violations of Colorado, Illinois, and Missouri law on behalf of
similarly situated delivery drivers. However, on February 5, 2019,
the Southern District of New York denied the motion to amend based
on a lack of personal jurisdiction, finding no connection between
the proposed plaintiffs and PJI's activities within New York.
In response to this decision, the same attorneys representing the
Durling Plaintiffs filed the current class action in the Western
District of Kentucky. In this case, Plaintiffs Amanda Hubbard,
Aaron Nelson, and Joshua Boyland allege that PJI under-reimbursed
its delivery drivers for expenses related to their vehicles which
resulted in payment below minimum wage in violation of Kentucky,
Colorado, and Missouri's minimum wage laws. In response, PJI filed
a motion to stay the case pursuant to the first-to-file rule,
arguing that to allow "this case to proceed concurrently with
Durling would waste significant judicial resources and create a
substantial risk of inconsistent rulings." However, PJI's motion to
stay became moot when Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended
complaint.
Plaintiffs' amended class action complaint added Edgar Bustamante,
Jacob Pontow, Milton Dearry, and Reynard Webb as named plaintiffs
alleging violations of Florida, Illinois, Maryland, and Minnesota
law on behalf of similarly situated delivery drivers residing in
their respective states. As a result, the following claims are
currently before the Court: violation of Kentucky's Wage and Hour
Law; violation of the Colorado Minimum Wage Act; breach of contract
under Colorado law; unjust enrichment under Colorado law; violation
of the Florida Minimum Wage Act; violation of the Illinois Minimum
Wage Act; violation of the Illinois Wage and Payment Collection
Act; breach of contract under Illinois law; unjust enrichment under
Illinois law; violation of the Maryland Minimum Wage and Hour Law;
violation of the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act; violation of
the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act; breach of contract under
Minnesota law; unjust enrichment under Minnesota law; breach of
contract under Missouri law; and unjust enrichment under Missouri
law. Subsequently, PJI filed the second motion to stay pursuant to
the first-to-file rule currently before the Court.
The first-to-file rule is a well-established doctrine that
encourages comity among federal courts of equal rank. In the Sixth
Circuit, courts apply the first-to-file rule by evaluating three
factors: (1) the chronology of events (2) the similarity of the
parties involved and (3) the similarity of the issues or claims at
stake.
Chronology of Events
According to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky, Paducah Division, the first factor the Court
must consider in determining whether the first-to-file rule applies
is the chronology of events. PJI argues that because Durling was
filed on May 13, 2016, over three years prior to the filing of the
current case, it is plainly the first-filed action.
In response, Plaintiffs claim that when applying the first-to-file
rule, the first court is not the court in which claims were first
filed, but rather the court in which jurisdiction first attaches to
the claims. Since the Southern District of New York lacked personal
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Nelson and Boylan's state law claims,
Plaintiffs argue that this Court is the first court" pursuant to
the first-to-file rule.
The Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiffs' interpretation of the
first-to-file rule. The Sixth Circuit has held that the dates to
compare for chronology purposes of the first-to-file rule are when
the relevant complaints are filed. Jurisdictional issues are not
considered in this inquiry.
Rather, the chronology of events factor simply asks which of the
two overlapping cases was filed first. The Durling action was filed
on May 13, 2016, while this case was filed on February 12, 2019.
Since Durling was filed almost three years before this case, the
first Baatz factor weighs in favor of applying the first-to-file
rule.
Similarities of the Parties
Second, the Court must consider the similarities of the parties
involved in the two cases. The first-to-file rule applies when the
parties in the two actions substantial[ly overlap, even if they are
not perfectly identical.
In this case, there is significant overlap between the parties.
First, PJI is the only named defendant in each action. There are
also similarities between each class of plaintiffs. The
conditionally certified Durling class includes: all delivery driver
employees at corporate-owned Papa John's stores and jointly owned
Papa John's stores where Defendant is the majority owner.
While the Hubbard Plaintiffs have yet to file a motion for class
certification, the amended complaint indicates that each named
Plaintiff seeks to represent all individuals employed at PJI's Papa
John's stores as delivery drivers in their respective states within
the maximum limitations period. Therefore, it appears that the
Hubbard class falls within the scope of the Durling class.
Thus, the Court finds there is significant overlap between the
parties involved in these cases.
Similarities of the Issues or Claims at Stake
Next, the Court must consider the similarity of the issues or
claims at stake. Just as with the similarity of the parties factor,
the issues need only to substantially overlap in order to apply the
first-to-file rule.
In this case, Plaintiffs bring class action claims under Kentucky,
Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, and Minnesota minimum wage
laws, as well as state breach of contract and unjust enrichment
claims. In Durling, Plaintiffs brought a collective and class
actions alleging violations of the FLSA and New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, and New Jersey minimum wage laws.
Although these claims are brought under a variety of state and
federal laws, Defendant argues that the primary issues in Hubbard
and Durling are the same: whether PJI failed to adequately
reimburse delivery drivers for expenses thereby paying delivery
drivers below the minimum wage.
Specifically, Defendant claims plaintiffs have pleaded the exact
same theory of relief, under the same set of alleged facts, and the
question of whether delivery drivers were adequately reimbursed and
paid minimum wage will be litigated and decided in both cases.
Plaintiffs do not dispute Defendant's argument that the claims in
Hubbard and Durling substantially overlap.
Despite the fact that the Hubbard and Durling claims arise under
different state laws, the Court finds there is substantial overlap
among the issues presented. First, the Hubbard and Durling
complaints allege nearly identical facts in support of their
claims. Moreover, all of the claims are based on the theory that
PJI failed to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for expenses,
thereby paying delivery drivers below minimum wage. Additionally,
the Plaintiffs' causes of action are similar given that they are
each brought pursuant to their respective states' minimum wage
laws. Although certain Hubbard Plaintiffs also allege breach of
contract and unjust enrichment, these causes of action arise under
the same core theory that PJI paid its delivery drivers below
minimum wage.
Finally, the Court finds that failing to apply the first-to-file
rule in this situation would defeat the purpose of the rule. In
this case, the issue of whether PJI failed to adequately reimburse
its delivery drivers for expenses, thereby paying delivery drivers
below minimum wage would be simultaneously before this Court and
the Southern District of New York.
Therefore, this Court believes that the concerns of judicial comity
and resource preservation further support a finding of substantial
overlap.
Equitable Considerations
Since the Baatz factors support application of the first-to-file
rule, the Court must also determine whether any equitable
considerations such as evidence of inequitable conduct, bad faith,
anticipatory suits or forum shopping, merit not applying the
first-to-file rule.
Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that a stay under the first-to-file
rule is not appropriate when another district determines that it
lacks jurisdiction over the parties and/or claims. Since the
Southern District of New York found it lacked personal jurisdiction
over certain Hubbard claims, Plaintiffs request the Court not
impose a stay in this matter.
In this case, the Court finds that staying the current action will
not jeopardize Plaintiffs' ability to seek relief against PJI
pursuant to Kentucky, Colorado, Missouri, Florida, Illinois,
Maryland, and Minnesota law. Thus, the Court will stay this case
and resume the adjudication of the issues if any remain after the
completion of the Durling litigation. To the extent that decisions
made by the Southern District of New York are not determinative of
all of the issues present herein, Plaintiffs may still have them
heard in the present case at such time as that action is
concluded.
Agains this backdrop, the Court rules that Defendant's Motion to
Stay Under the First-To-File Rule and to Partially Dismiss Claims
as Time-Barred, is DENIED AS MOOT and Defendant's Motion to Stay
Under The First-To-File Rule and Partial Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Claims, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
A full-text copy of the District Court's November 18, 2019
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/v73mbby Leagle.com.
Amanda Hubbard, Aaron Nelson & Joshua Boyland, Plaintiffs,
represented by Andrew C. White - AWHITE@FBFGLAW.COM - Finkelstein
Blankinship Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, David J. Cohen -
dcohen@stephanzouras.com - Stephan Zouras, LLP, David O'Brien
Suetholz - davids@bsjfirm.com - Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings,
PLLC, Douglas Gregory Blankinship , Finkelstein Blankinship
Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, 1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220,
White Plains, N.Y. 10605, J. Gerard Stranch, IV -
gerards@bsjfirm.com - Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, PLLC, James
B. Zouras , Stephan Zouras, LLP, 205 N. Michigan Avenue Suite 2560
Chicago, IL, 60601-6024, Jeremiah L. Frei-Pearson -
jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com - Finkelstein Blankinship Frei-Pearson &
Garber, LLP, Mark A. Potashnick - markp@wp-attorneys.com - Weinhaus
& Potashnick, Richard M. Paul, III - Rick@PaulLLP.com - Paul LLP &
Ryan F. Stephan , Stephan Zouras, LLP, 205 N. Michigan Avenue Suite
2560, Chicago, IL, 60601-602
Edgar Bustamante, Milton Dearry, Reynard Webb & Jacob Pontow,
Plaintiffs, represented by Mark A. Potashnick , Weinhaus &
Potashnick & David O'Brien Suetholz , Branstetter, Stranch &
Jennings, PLLC.
Papa John's International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Buddy J.
VanCleave - buddy.vancleave@qpwblaw.com - Quintairos, Prieto, Wood
& Boyer, PA, Cynthia Blevins Doll - cdoll@fisherphillips.com -
Fisher & Phillips LLP, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. , Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
Gina Renee Merrill , Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Matthew Gagnon , Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, Michael L. DeMarino , Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 233 South
Wacker Drive Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60606 & Emily N. Litzinger
elitzinger@fisherphillips.com – Fisher Phillips
PHIA GROUP: Seeks Second Circuit Review of Order in Weyant Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants INDECS Corporation and The Phia Group LLC filed an
appeal from the District Court's decision and order, issued on
September 13, 2018, in the lawsuit entitled Weyant v. The Phia
Group LLC, et al., Case No. 17-cv-8230, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (New York City).
The nature of suit is stated as contract-overpayment recovery.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action was commenced by Jessica Weyant against Defendants Phia
Group, LLC and INDECS Corporation (collectively, "Defendants"), on
behalf of herself and those similarly situated. During the
relevant period, the Plaintiff was a participant in the
Orange-Ulster School Districts Health Plan (the "Plan"). Defendant
INDECS is the claims administrator for the Plan. Defendant Phia is
the authorized agent of INDECS for the purposes of subrogation and
reimbursement efforts on behalf of the Plan.
In April 2012, the Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle
accident in Maryland. As a result of the Plaintiff's injuries from
the accident, the Plan provided health benefits to the Plaintiff.
After the Plaintiff settled the underlying personal injury case,
Phia, acting on behalf of INDECS, asserted rights to repayment of
benefits paid by the Plan and demanded repayment of $16,057.19 from
the settlement.
The appellate case is captioned as Weyant v. The Phia Group LLC, et
al., Case No. 19-3536, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee Jessica Weyant, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Charles Thomas Kannebecker, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES KANNEBECKER
104 West High Street
Milford, PA 18337
Telephone: (570) 296-6471
E-mail: kannebecker@wsklawfirm.com
Defendants-Appellants The Phia Group LLC and INDECS Corporation are
represented by:
Ryan L. Woody, Esq.
MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C.
1111 East Sunmer Street
P.O. Box 270670
Hartford, WI 53027
Telephone: (262) 673-7850
E-mail: rwoody@mwl-law.com
PIZZA PROPERTIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Drivers, Buck Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BUCK, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. PIZZA PROPERTIES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
d/b/a "DOMINO'S PIZZA," PIZZA PROPERTIES, INC. and ROBERT TAYLOR,
Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-00026-FL (E.D. Cal., February 13,
2020) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay the
federal minimum wage.
Defendants Buck was employed by the Defendants at their Domino's
Pizza stores as a delivery driver.
Pizza Properties of North Carolina, Inc. serves as a pizza
restaurant chain which is authorized to conduct business and is
conducting business in North Carolina.
Pizza Properties, Inc. also serves as a pizza restaurant chain
which is authorized to conduct business and is conducting business
in North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob J. Modla, Esq.
The Law Offices of Jason E. Taylor
454 South Anderson Rd., Suite 303
Rock Hill, SC 29730
Telephone: 803-328-0898
– and -
Jay Forester, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
PNC BANK: Class Certification Bid in Kazi Suit Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TANSEER KAZI, et al. v. PNC
BANK, N.A., Case No. 3:18-cv-04810-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Joseph C. Spero entered an order on Feb. 7, 2020, granting in part
and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Court said, "Plaintiff Scheid may represent a class of PNC
mortgage loan officers for claims based on alleged failure to pay
for rest breaks, and claims derivative of such a theory, defined as
all individuals who were employed by PNC as mortgage loan officers
at any time from 24 June 28, 2014 through the resolution of this
action. The Plaintiffs indicated they may wish to modify the class
time period to account for a policy change that PNC instituted in
July of 2019, but that they do not yet have sufficient information
to determine whether that change affects their claims. The parties
are instructed to meet and confer regarding a schedule for any
motions or stipulations to modify the class definition, either to
set an earlier end date or to seek to include claims based on
nonproductive time other than rest breaks."
A case management conference is set for March 13, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
The parties are directed to file an updated joint case management
statement no later than March 6, 2020, the Court adds.
PNC offers a wide range of services for all customers, from
individuals and small businesses, to corporations and government
entities.[CC]
PORT PIZZA: Fails to Distribute Employees' Tips, Gee et al Allege
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ROBERT GEE, DYLAN GRUBB, DARL HOFFMAN, and ERIC
RITTENHOUSE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. PORT PIZZA, LLC d/b/a DOMINO'S
PIZZA and SHELDON PORT, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00256 (M.D.
Pa., February 13, 2020), seeks the return of unpaid wages and
related relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection
Law.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have unlawfully retained the
wages of Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated delivery
drivers and other employees of Defendants by not distributing the
employees' tips from Defendants' customers and also failing to
reimburse their employees for their vehicle expenses.
Port Pizza, LLC and Sheldon Port own and operate approximately ten
Domino's Pizza. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David S, Gaines, Jr., Esq.
John W. Lhota, Esq.
MILLER, KISTLER & CAMPBELL
720 South Atherton St., Suite 201
State College, PA 16801
Tel: (814)234-1500
Fax: (814)234-1549
Emails: dgaines@mkclaw.com
jlhota@mkclaw.com
PROGREXION TELESERVICES: Born Files FLSA Suit in Utah
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progrexion
Teleservices. The case is styled as Cristin Born and Jessica
Chauhan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Progrexion Teleservices, Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00107-CMR (D. Utah, Feb. 19, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Fair
Standards filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Progrexion offers a wide range of credit repair services through
its trusted consumer brands, Lexington Law Firm, Creditrepair.com,
and efolks.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew W. Stavros, Esq.
Stavros Law PC
8915 S 700 E STE 202
Sandy, UT 84070
Tel: (801) 758-7604
Email: andy@stavroslaw.com
QUDIAN INC: Bellingham Hits Share Drop from Bad Loans
-----------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bellingham, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Qudian Inc., Min Luo and Carl
Yeung, Defendants, Case 20-cv-00577 (S.D. N.Y., January 22, 2020),
seeks damages and interest, reasonable costs, including attorneys'
fees, equitable/injunctive or other relief for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Qudian provides online small consumer credit products in China,
using big data-enabled technologies. Qudian's securities trade on
the NYSE under the ticker symbol "QD."
The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that
regulatory developments in China threatened to negatively impact
Qudian's fiscal full year 2019 financial results; was unprepared to
mitigate the risks associated with these regulatory changes; and
that its loan portfolio was plagued by growing delinquency rates.
On this news, Qudian's American Depository Share price fell $0.84
per share, or 19.13%, to close at $3.55 per share on January 16,
2020. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (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
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
RAUSCH STURM: Choi Asserts Breach of FDCPA
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rausch, Sturm,
Israel, Enerson & Hornik LLP. The case is styled as Yong Woo Choi,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson & Hornik LLP doing
business as: Rausch Sturm, Galaxy Asset Purchasing, LLC and
Worldwide Asset Purchasing II, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00857 (E.D., N.Y., Feb. 18, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Rausch Sturm is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Michael Barshay, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza
Ste 5th Floor
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com
RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Guzmman Alleges Violation under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Receivable Management
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Andy Guzman, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Receivable
Management Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-20709-MGC (S.D.
Fla., Feb. 19, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Receivable Management Group (RMG) is a debt collection agency
located in Columbus, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders PLLC
100 Garden CIty Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
SET ENTERPRISES: Taylor Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool
--------------------------------------------------
Jarnise Barbour Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Set Enterprises, Inc., 100
Ansin Blvd Property, LLC, Julie Rodriguez, Jose Rodriguez and Does
1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-20286, (S.D. Fla.,
December 22, 2019) seeks damages for violations of the mandatory
minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and for illegally withholding tips.
The Set Enterprises operate as "Cheetah Hallandale," an
adult-oriented entertainment facility located at 100 Ansin
Boulevard, Hallandale Beach, Florida 33009 where Taylor worked as
an exotic dancer. She was compensated exclusively through tips from
customers and did not receive payment for any hours worked at their
establishment. However, she was required to share her tips with
other non-service employees who do not customarily receive tips,
including the managers, disc jockeys, and the bouncers, says the
complaint. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq.
FLORIDA LEGAL, LLC
14 Northeast 1st Avenue, Suite 1001
Miami, FL
Telephone: (305) 722-6977
Fax: (786) 870-4030
Email: ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law
- and -
Jacob J. Ventura, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 507-7924
Fax: (310) 507-7906
Email: jacob@kristensenlaw.com
- and -
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77066
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Fax: (888) 995-3335
Email: leigh@hughesellzey.com
SHOEBACCA LTD: Cruz Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Shoebacca LTD. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael
Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Shoebacca LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01462
(S.D. N.Y., Feb. 19, 2020).
Shoebacca LTD. is an online retailer of shoes for men, women, and
kids.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
SIRIUS XM: North Texas Man Wins Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Vince Sims, writing for NBC 5, reports that Thomas Buchanan had no
idea how much his phone rang during the day until he had to stay
home on a medical disability. "My phone would ring constantly,"
Buchanan said. "I would get up to 25 phone calls a day."
He was on all 'Do Not Call' lists so he didn't understand why this
was happening.
"I'm entitled to lay my head down in my home and rest without my
phone ringing by some company trying to sell me a product,"
Buchanan said.
He got calls from all kinds of companies and he documented them
all.
But calls from SiriusXM stood out the most because he never had an
account with them.
He said he tried to get them to stop by all means necessary.
"Contacted the local police department and they laughed and said we
get those calls even here all the time there's nothing you can do
about it," Buchanan said.
But he didn't take no for an answer. Buchanan took it upon himself
to find several law firms across the country to build a team of
attorneys. Together they filed a class action lawsuit against
SiriusXM.
He won a $32 million settlement. He'll only got $10,000. The rest
goes to attorney fees and paying some of the more than 400 other
participants in the lawsuit $42 dollars each. The others will get
three months of free radio service.
Buchanan said he could have received more money if he sued SiriusXM
alone. But he said it's not about getting rich. It's about sending
a message.
"I want to hit your pocket books as hard as I can hit them and
share the wealth among the people who joined with me in these class
action lawsuits," Buchanan said.
NBC 5 reached out to SiriusXM for comment but the company did not
respond.
Buchanan said he hopes his victory will inspire other to fight back
like he did. [GN]
SIRIUSXM: Buchanan Plaintiff Gets Only $10,000 From TCPA Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Lieber, writing for The Dallas Morning News, reports that this
is a story about how 16 spam phone calls led to a $32 million
federal court verdict.
No one was even on the line when Thomas Buchanan of Allen answered
the calls. They were all hang-ups. It didn't matter. They were
illegal.
Police and the Texas attorney general's office told him nothing
could be done. He didn't listen. He persuaded the Allen Police
Department to help him figure out who was making the hang-up calls.
That helped.
Buchanan then shopped for a lawyer to represent him in a lawsuit,
as is his right. When he finally found one, that lawyer recruited
five other law firms to help fight the case. In interviews outside
the courtroom, the lawyers told me their work is highly specialized
and they needed experts from different firms in order to win.
Skipping to the end of this story, those lawyers won a big verdict
the other day in Dallas federal court. For their efforts, the cadre
of lawyers were awarded $6.4 million in legal fees.
For his efforts, Buchanan -- who kept meticulous notes, sat for a
deposition and worked on this for five years -- was awarded a
measly $10,000.
Court records show that about 15 million people who were on the
federal or state Do Not Call lists got similar improper phone
calls, but only 437,000 opted into the lawsuit when they were
notified by postcard.
SiriusXM must now send $42 to some of the 437,000 claimants. The
rest will get three months of free radio service.
At this point, the cash payments are closed, but you can still
apply for the free service if you believe you received improper
calls.
Thomas Demitrack of the Jones Day law firm represented SiriusXM. He
declined to talk to The Watchdog. But court records show that
SiriusXM denied any wrongdoing in the case and said it agreed to a
settlement only to avoid further expense and public controversy.
How it began
Buchanan bought a van for his wife that came with a free trial of
SiriusXM. When the trial ended, he didn't agree to renew. He
received phone calls from SiriusXM.
Demitrack argued that because the radio service was in the vehicle,
SiriusXM had an existing business relationship with Buchanan and
that made the calls proper.
Buchanan's lawyers argued that because he never was in contact with
SiriusXM and didn't sign up for the service, he was not in a
business relationship.
Buchanan could have negotiated with SiriusXM on his own.
But when I asked Buchanan's lawyers about suing as an individual as
opposed to being in a class action, they said a lawyer would be
hard-pressed to represent an individual because the reward would be
small. But a class-action lawsuit on behalf of many with Buchanan
as the lead plaintiff could yield a multimillion dollar verdict.
That's what happened.
Why only $10,000?
Buchanan says he signed his first agreement with lawyers to
represent him without reading the document. In theory, he could
have negotiated a better financial reward.
"People never should sign a document without reading it," he now
says.
Daniel M. Hutchinson, one of his lawyers, told senior U.S. District
Judge Sidney Fitzwater, "If we thought we could have asked for more
for him, we certainly would have."
The judge must approve the "incentive award" for any successful
plaintiff. Lawyers told me that Buchanan's $10,000 award was on the
"high end" of the possible awards.
One reason it's so low is because Buchanan is not supposed to do
that much better than those getting the $42 payments.
Another reason, I believe, is because his lawyers didn't ask for
more.
Benefits to consumers
Lawyers celebrating their big victory and payday told me that an
advantage in winning a class-action lawsuit as opposed to an
individual lawsuit is that it can force a company to change its
business practices.
That's what will happen here.
SiriusXM promises to adhere to the Do Not Call list, to train its
call center vendors to do so and to provide a notice to trial
subscribers that they are considered to be customers of the company
and may get phone calls. Customers will also be notified how to
contact the company to cancel or renew the service.
Are you affected?
If you received unwanted calls from SiriusXM between October 2013
to April 2019 and you're on the Do Not Call list, either federal,
state or the company's internal DNC list, you can apply for three
months of free service. (If you were a paying customer under
contract at the time, you don't qualify.)
Apply at www.siriusxmdncTCPAsettlement.com. [GN]
STEAM GENERATING: Miller Moves to Compel Compliance With Subpoena
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Pam Miller, Individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. THE STEAM GENERATING TEAM, LLC, Case
No. 2:20-mc-00234-RJC (W.D. Penn.), the Plaintiff filed with the
Court on Feb. 17, 2020, a motion to compel compliance with
third-party subpoena.
The Steam Generating Team LLC provides various industrial
replacement services to the nuclear industry. The Company provides
nuclear construction services, fuel, engineering, and heavy
components for nuclear power plants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: adunlap@mybackwages.com
STOCKX LLC: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
--------------------------------------------
Stockx LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael Cruz,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Stockx LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01467 (S.D. N.Y., Feb.
19, 2020).
StockX is an online marketplace and clothing reseller, primarily of
sneakers. The Detroit-based company was founded by Dan Gilbert,
Josh Luber, Greg Schwartz, and Chris Kaufman in 2015–2016. StockX
has more than 800 employees in Downtown Detroit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
SUMMER INFANT (USA): Cruz Suit Asserts Breach of ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Summer Infant (USA), Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Summer Infant (USA), Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01460 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 19, 2020).
Summer Infant (USA), Inc. was founded in 2006. The company's line
of business includes the manufacturing of fabricated textile
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
TELARIA INC: Sabatini Balks at Rubicon Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------
The case, ERIC SAATINI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TELARIA, INC., PAUL CAINE, MARK
ZAGORSKI, DOUG KNOPPER, RACHEL LAM, WARREN LEE, JAMES ROSSMAN,
ROBERT SCHECHTER, KEVIN THOMPSON, THE RUBICON PROJECT, INC. and
MADISON MERGER CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00219 (D. Del.,
February 13, 2020), stems from a proposed merger transaction
announced on December 19, 2019.
Pursuant to a plan acquisition of Telaria, Inc. by The Rubicon
Project, Inc. and Madison Merger Corp., Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by filing a false and misleading Form S-4
Registration Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
According to the complaint, Defendants have omitted material
information on the Registration Statement filed, which is an
essential link in the decision making of Plaintiff and the
Company's stockholders to approve the Proposed Transaction. The
Registration Statement fails to disclose the financial projections
of Telaria, Rubicon Project, and the pro forma combined company;
the analyses performed by Telaria's financial advisor RBC Capital
Markets, LLC in connection with the proposed transaction; and
whether the Company entered into any non-disclosure agreements that
contained standstill and/or "don't ask, don't waive" provisions
that are or were preventing the counterparties from submitting
offers to acquire the Company.
Telaria, Inc. provides a fully programmatic software platform for
premium publishers to manage and monetize their video advertising.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302)295-5310
Fax: (302)654-7530
Emails: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Tel: (484)324-6800
Fax: (484)631-1305
Email: rm@maniskas.com
TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT: Diller Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON DILLER, individually and as the representative of a class
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff v. DONALD J. TRUMP FOR
PRESIDENT, INC. and the REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01079 (N.D. Ill., February 13, 2020) seeks to put
an end to Defendants' alleged practice of sending unsolicited text
messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
to recover statutory damages and other relief for all those who
received such text messages.
According to the complaint, Defendants sent text messages to the
wireless telephones of Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
persons without their prior express consent and without providing
the proper disclosures in violation of federal law.
Plaintiff asserts that the text messages sent by Defendants had
caused him and other consumers actual harm because they pay their
cell phone service providers to receive text messages.
Donald J. Trump For President, Inc. is the principal campaign
committee for Donald J. Trump's presidential and reelection
campaign.
The Republican National Committee is a U.S. political committee.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
Jonathan B. Piper, Esq.
BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312)658-5500
Fax: (312)658-5555
Email: phil@classlawyers.com
tod@classlawyers.com
david@classlawyers.com
phil@classlawyers.com
TYSON FOODS: Non-Supervisory Staff Wage-Fixing Class Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 28, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit initiated by
the non-supervisory production and maintenance employees of the
company.
On August 30, 2019, Judy Jien, Kieo Jibidi and Elaisa Clement,
acting on their own behalf and a putative class of non-supervisory
production and maintenance employees at chicken processing plants
in the continental United States, filed a class action complaint
against the company and certain of its subsidiaries, as well as
several other poultry processing companies, in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.
An additional complaint making similar allegations was also filed
by Emily Earnest.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants directly and through a
wage survey and benchmarking service exchanged information
regarding labor rates in an effort to depress and fix the rates of
wages for non-supervisory production and maintenance workers in
violation of federal antitrust laws.
The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages,
punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest,
as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.
The court consolidated the Jien and Earnest cases for coordinated
pretrial proceedings.
Following the consolidation, two additional lawsuits have been
filed by individuals making similar allegations.
The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint containing
additional allegations concerning turkey processing plants and
named additional defendants.
Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Beef,Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was
founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.
TYSON FOODS: PH Supreme Court Review on Suit v. Hillshire Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 28, 2019, that the Philippine
Supreme Court's review of the case where Tyson Foods, Inc.'s
subsidiary is a respondent is still pending.
The company's subsidiary, The Hillshire Brands Company (formerly
named Sara Lee Corporation), is a party to a consolidation of cases
filed by individual complainants with the Republic of the
Philippines, Department of Labor and Employment and the National
Labor Relations Commission ("NLRC") from 1998 through July 1999.
The complaint was filed against Aris Philippines, Inc., Sara Lee
Corporation, Sara Lee Philippines, Inc., Fashion Accessories
Philippines, Inc., and Attorney Cesar C. Cruz (collectively, the
"respondents").
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the respondents
engaged in unfair labor practices in connection with the
termination of manufacturing operations in the Philippines in 1995
by Aris Philippines, Inc., a former subsidiary of The Hillshire
Brands Company. In late 2004, a labor arbiter ruled against the
respondents and awarded the complainants PHP3,453,664,710
(approximately U.S. $68 million) in damages and fees.
The respondents appealed the labor arbiter's ruling, and it was
subsequently set aside by the NLRC in December 2006. Subsequent to
the NLRC's decision, the parties filed numerous appeals, motions
for reconsideration and petitions for review, certain of which
remained outstanding for several years.
While various of those appeals, motions and/or petitions were
pending, The Hillshire Brands Company, on June 23, 2014, without
admitting liability, filed a settlement motion requesting that the
Supreme Court of the Philippines order dismissal with prejudice of
all claims against it and certain other respondents in exchange for
payments allocated by the court among the complainants in an amount
not to exceed PHP342,287,800 (approximately U.S. $6.7 million).
Based in part on its finding that the consideration to be paid to
the complainants as part of such settlement was insufficient, the
Supreme Court of the Philippines denied the respondents' settlement
motion and all motions for reconsideration thereof. The Supreme
Court of the Philippines also set aside as premature the NLRC's
December 2006 ruling.
As a result, the cases were remanded back before the NLRC to rule
on the merits of the case. On December 15, 2016, the company
learned that the NLRC rendered its decision on November 29, 2016,
regarding the respondents' appeals regarding the labor arbiter's
2004 ruling in favor of the complainants.
The NLRC increased the award for 4,922 of the total 5,984
complainants to PHP14,858,495,937 (approximately U.S. $292
million). However, the NLRC approved a prior settlement reached
with the group comprising approximately 18% of the class of 5,984
complainants, pursuant to which The Hillshire Brands Company agreed
to pay each settling complainant PHP68,000 (approximately U.S.
$1,300).
The settlement payment was made on December 21, 2016, to the NLRC,
which is responsible for distributing the funds to each settling
complainant. On December 27, 2016, the respondents filed motions
for reconsideration with the NLRC asking that the award be set
aside. The NLRC denied respondents' motions for reconsideration in
a resolution received on May 5, 2017 and entered a judgment on the
award on July 24, 2017.
Each of Aris Philippines, Inc., Sara Lee Corporation and Sara Lee
Philippines, Inc. appealed this award and sought an injunction to
preclude enforcement of the award to the Philippines Court of
Appeals.
On November 23, 2017, the Court of Appeals granted a writ of
preliminary injunction that precluded execution of the NLRC award
during the pendency of the appeal. The Court of Appeals
subsequently vacated the NLRC's award on April 12, 2018.
Complainants have filed motions for reconsideration with the Court
of Appeals.
On November 14, 2018, the Court of Appeals denied claimants'
motions for reconsideration and granted defendants' motion to
release and discharge the preliminary injunction bond. Claimants
have since filed petitions for writ of certiorari with the Supreme
Court of the Philippines.
The Supreme Court has accepted the case for review.
Tyson Foods said, "We continue to maintain an accrual for this
matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Beef,Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was
founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.
UNITED STATES: Court Denies Reconsideration Bid in CAPPS Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia
issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff's Motion
for Reconsideration in the case captioned CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
PRIVATE POSTSECONDARY SCHOOLS, Plaintiff, v. ELISABETH DeVOS,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, et al., Defendants,
MEAGHAN BAUER AND STEPHANO DEL ROSE, Defendant-Intervenors, Civil
Action No. 17-999 (RDM) (D.D.C.).
CAPPS moved for reconsideration of the Court's order granting the
Intervenors leave to intervene and simultaneously moved for a
preliminary injunction to prevent the Department from implementing
the 2016 Rule.
Intervenors Meaghan Bauer and Stephano Del Rose (Intervenors) are
former students at the New England Institute of Art (NEIA) who took
out large student loans in reliance on what they contend were false
promises by NEIA. The Department of Education (Department)
promulgated new rules that would have made it easier for Bauer and
Del Rose to seek administrative relief from their debts and to
bring class action claims on behalf of other former NEIA students
against NEIA.
The California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools (CAPPS)
filed this lawsuit challenging those new rules as unlawful and
seeking to enjoin their implementation.
In response to this suit, the Department announced that it would
delay implementation of the challenged rules and in response to the
Department's action, Bauer and Del Rose then filed a separate suit
challenging that delay as unlawful.
They also moved to intervene in this case based on their concern
that the Department's decision to stay implementation of the 2016
Rule might signal less than full resolve to defend the rule in the
present action.
The Court granted their motion to intervene.
LEGAL STANDARD
Any order or decision that is not a final judgment may be revised
at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the
claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities. The burden is
on the moving party to show that reconsideration is appropriate and
that harm or injustice would result if reconsideration were
denied.
CAPPS comes to Court with newly discovered and significant
evidence: while the motion to intervene was pending, NEIA and EDMC
filed for bankruptcy. The Intervenors concede that this bankruptcy
filing rendered their earlier plans to sue NEIA and EDMC as
defendants who might possibly pay a judgment no longer viable.
CAPPS argues, then, that because the Intervenors could not have
brought suit against NEIA and EDMC at the time this Court decided
the motion to intervene for reasons wholly independent of the
challenged Arbitration and Class Action Waiver Provision, they
lacked standing to intervene. And, CAPPS argues, because the
decision permitting them to intervene was predicated on the false
premise that the challenge to the Arbitration and Class Action
Waiver Provision of the 2016 Rules was the only thing standing
between the Intervenors and a class action lawsuit, justice
requires reconsideration and reversal of that decision.
Parties who seek to intervene as a matter of right under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) must satisfy Article III's standing
requirement. Standing requires a personal stake in the outcome of
the controversy sufficient to warrant federal-court jurisdiction.
The irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three
elements: (1) an injury in fact (2) a causal connection between
that injury and the conduct complained of and (3) that injury is
redressable by a favorable decision in the lawsuit in question.
The Court agrees with CAPPS that the Intervenors' plan to sue NEIA
and EDMC did not support their standing to intervene under Rule
24(a) at the time the Court granted their motion. The Intervenors
assert that they are now considering but have not decided whether
to file suit against a company that purchased some of EDMC's assets
on a possible successor liability theory. Standing, however,
requires an injury that is concrete and particularized and actual
or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.
Because the Intervenors fail to assert an actual or imminent plan
to bring a suit that would have been thwarted by a class action
waiver or arbitration clause, the Court is unconvinced that the
Intervenors' consideration of possible litigation sufficed to
support Article III jurisdiction.
The Intervenors, however, offer an alternate ground for their
standing. Specifically, they point to the fact that they have filed
borrower defense applications with the Department and would
therefore benefit from certain procedural safeguards in the 2016
Rule, and would be entitled to automatic forbearance if the rule
were to take effect. Those procedural safeguards include an
expanded fact-finding process in which the Department considers its
own record and any additional information or argument that it may
obtain, a requirement the Department identify and provide to the
borrower, upon request, any such records and a requirement that, in
the case of a full or partial denial, the Department provide the
borrower a written decision explaining the reasons for the denial,
the evidence that was relied upon, any portion of the loan that is
due and payable to the Secretary, and whether the Secretary will
reimburse any amounts previously collected.
CAPPS does not address the Intervenors' claim that denial of the
procedural safeguards pertaining to the adjudication of a single
borrower defense application including the requirement that the
Department provide a written justification for any denial and that
it provide evidence it relied upon to the borrower upon request
constitutes a sufficient injury to sustain their standing.
CAPPS first contends that the automatic forbearance provisions do
not afford the Intervenors any benefit because their loans are
already in forbearance. As their declarations indicate, however,
both Intervenors were entitled to forbearance only until April
2019. And, the 2016 Rule appears to provide automatic forbearance
until the completion of the borrower defense application process.
CAPPS next argues that the group adjudication procedures for
borrower defense applications do not afford the Intervenors a
sufficiently concrete interest to establish standing because group
adjudication is subject to the Secretary's discretion. But the fact
that group adjudication is discretionary does not mean that it
cannot form the basis of the Intervenors' standing, the denial of a
purely discretionary benefit can support Article III standing if
the plaintiff claims that an agency based its decision on an
improper legal ground. The loss of the opportunity to even seek a
discretionary benefit, by the same logic, can constitute a
cognizable injury.
CAPPS contends, however, that the Intervenors' assertions about
their borrower defense applications could not have supported their
standing to intervene because Intervenors invoked that interest for
the first time in their reply in the initial round of briefing.
The fact that an argument was raised in reply, and thus arguably
forfeited, is not the sort of error that warrants reconsideration
of a prior court order. CAPPS, moreover, had ample opportunity to
address the arguments raised in the Intervenors' reply when the
Court entertained argument on the motion to intervene at the
September 12, 2018 status conference.
The Court will, therefore, deny CAPPS's motion to reconsider the
Court's September 14, 2018 order permitting the Intervenors to
intervene in this case.
A full-text copy of the District Court's November 18, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/r2f3c3o Leagle.com.
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF PRIVATE POSTSECONDARY SCHOOLS, Plaintiff,
represented by Robert Lawrence Shapiro - RShapiro@duanemorris.com -
Duane Morris LLP, Boris Bershteyn -boris.bershteyn@skadden.com -
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, pro hac vice, Sylvia Olga
Tsakos - sylvia.tsakos@skadden.com - SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER
& FLOM LLP & Todd D. Kelly - todd.kelly@skadden.com - SKADDEN,
ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP.
BETSY DEVOS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the
Department of Education. & DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendants,
represented by Karen Bloom , U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & R.
Charlie Merritt , U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division.
MEAGHAN BAUER & STEPHANO DEL ROSE, Intervenor Defendants,
represented by Adam R. Pulver , PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP,
Scott Lawrence Nelson , PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP & Toby R.
Merrill , LEGAL SERVICES CENTER OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Amicus, represented by Max McMeekin
Weinstein , OFFICE OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL, Joshua
Edward Olszewski-Jubelirer , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL/MASSACHUSETTS Consumer Protection Divsion & Yael Shavit ,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS.
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification Bid in Millman Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the
case captioned OPAL MILLMAN, ERIC POWELL, and LAURY POWELL on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP., LEAR CORPORATIONS EEDS AND INTERIORS,
as successor to United Technologies Automotive, Inc., ANDREWS DAIRY
STORE, INC., L.D. WILLIAMS, INC., CP PRODUCT, LLC, as successor to
Preferred Technical Group, Inc., and LDW DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-CV-312-HAB (N.D. Ind.).
Andrews is a small town located in Huntington County, Indiana.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants owned and/or operated two
businesses that contaminated essentially the entire town, including
the soil, groundwater, and utility lines, with petroleum and
volatile chlorinated compounds.
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification asks the Court to
certify a class as to liability-only issues pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Proposed Issues for Certification
Plaintiff submit the following issues for certification of a
liability-only issue class:
1) Each Defendant's role in creating the contamination emanating
from the UTA Facility, including their historical operations,
disposal practices, and chemical usage.
2) Each Defendant's role in creating the contamination emanating
from the Gas Station, including their historical operations,
disposal practices, chemical usage, and history of underground
storage tank maintenance, repairs, and leaks.
3) Whether it was foreseeable to the Defendants that their
handling, disposal, and/or leaking of chemicals could cause an
off-site plume of Contamination
4) Whether Contamination emanating from the UTA Facility has
reached the soil, groundwater, and/or utility lines beneath the
homes and properties within the Class Area.
5) Whether Contamination emanating from the Gas Station has
reached the soil, groundwater, and/or utility lines beneath the
homes and properties within the Class Area.
6) Whether the Defendants' actions and inactions have caused Class
members and properties within the Class Area to incur the potential
for vapor intrusion from Contamination emanating from the UTA
Facility and/or the Gas Station.
7) Whether the Defendants negligently failed to investigate and
remediate the Contamination at and flowing from their respective
facilities.
8) Whether, and to what extent, environmental remediation is
needed as a result of the Contamination and
9) Whether the Contamination constitutes an imminent and
substantial endangerment to human health and/or the environment
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Plaintiffs Cannot Satisfy the Requirements of Rule 23(a)
Under Rule 23(a), class certification is permitted only if these
four requirements are met: (1) the class is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable (2) there are questions of
law or fact common to the class (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims and defenses of
the class and (4) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.
For the purposes of this Court's analysis it is sufficient to focus
on the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3), as this is where
the failures in Plaintiffs' proposed class are the most evident. A
claim is typical if it arises from the same event or practice or
course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class
members and her claims are based on the same legal theory. Even
though some factual variations may not defeat typicality, the
requirement is meant to ensure that the named representative's
claims have the same essential characteristics as the claims of the
class at large.
Take the claim for trespass, for example. Under Indiana law, a
plaintiff is generally required to establish two elements when
pursuing a trespass claim. First, the plaintiff must show that he
possessed the land when the alleged trespass occurred. Second, the
plaintiff must demonstrate that the trespassing defendant entered
the land without a legal right to do so. The only class members
with a viable claim for trespass, then, are those that owned the
land when the contamination reached their parcel. Subsequent
owners, who obtained a possessory interest after the trespass
occurred, have no claim. This would likely include the Powell
Plaintiffs, who did not begin living at their home until 1989, some
six years into the proposed class period.
A similar problem exists with respect to Plaintiffs' claim under
the RCRA. Claims under the RCRA, like all other claims, require
that a plaintiff have standing to bring the claim. This requires,
at a minimum, an injury in fact that is concrete, distinct and
palpable, and actual or imminent. While the RCRA claims do not
suffer from the same subsequent purchaser issues as the state court
trespass claim.
The requirement of typicality cannot be met. Accordingly, the
proposed class cannot be certified, rules the Court.
Plaintiffs Cannot Satisfy the Requirements of Rule 23(c)(4)
Even if the Court were to overlook the Rule 23(a) shortcomings, it
would still conclude that certification was inappropriate. Even
when a claim as a whole cannot be resolved on a class-wide basis,
Rule 23 allows an action to be brought or maintained as a class
action with respect to particular issues.
The Court concludes that Plaintiffs' proposed issues do not carve
at the joint, largely because the scope of the proposed class does
not leave a joint at which to carve. Part of the problem here is
the lack of discussion of Rule 23(c)(4) by the Plaintiffs in their
briefs. After reviewing Plaintiffs' briefs, the Court has little
indication as to how Plaintiffs intend to advance this litigation
with their proposed issues, or why they believe the line of
demarcation they have chosen represents the appropriate carving
joint of their case.
Plaintiffs' arguments notwithstanding, the Court concludes that
Rule 23(c)(4) certification is inappropriate here because, even if
a jury were to find in Plaintiffs' favor on every proposed issue,
the proof required in the subsequent individual trials would remain
unchanged. Take the negligence claims, for instance. Plaintiffs
concede that they are not attempting to certify issues of causation
and damages, and that these issues would be the most expensive and
time-consuming aspect of this case.
In relative terms, then, the purported common issues are of
relative insignificance when compared to the individual issues,
calling into question the utility of the Rule 23(c)(4) process.
That aside, Plaintiffs' concession means that each class member
would have to prove the following at a subsequent trial: (1)
whether their property has been contaminated (2) by which Defendant
(3) when the contamination occurred (4) whether they were exposed
to the contamination (5) whether they suffered injury and (6)
whether their injury was proximately caused by the Defendants'
conduct.
It is difficult to see how any of these issues would be resolved by
Plaintiffs' proposed issues.
While resolution of class issues 4 and 5 may resolve the issue of
whether a particular property was contaminated at some point in
time, the fact of contamination is part and parcel of the remaining
matters to be proven. Stated another way, if a class member proves
the date their land was contaminated, they have necessarily proven
that the land was contaminated.
Plaintiffs' proposed issues can only demonstrate there is the
potential for a Defendant to be liable to any particular class
member. Actual liability, along with damages, would have to be
resolved later. Thus, a class proceeding here can only exclude, not
include, potential plaintiffs. The class proceeding can only
benefit the Defendants and they oppose certification.
For these reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is
DENIED.
A full-text copy of the District Court's November 18, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/qqvc9qk Leagle.com.
Opal Millman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Eric Powell, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated & Laury Powell, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Rodney L.
Michael, Jr. -rmichael@taftlaw.com - Taft Stettinius & Hollister
LLP, Thomas A. Barnard - tbarnard@taftlaw.com - Taft Stettinius &
Hollister LLP, Benjamin A. Wolowski - bwolowski@taftlaw.com -Taft
Stettinius & Hollister LLP & Tammara D. Porter -
tporter@taftlaw.com - Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.
United Technologies Corporation & Lear Corporation Eeds and
Interiors, successor to United Technologies Automotive Inc,
Defendants, represented by Alicia Marcia Barrs , Barnes & Thornburg
LLP, Joseph G. Eaton , Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Meredith Thornburgh
White , Barnes & Thornburg LLP & Kelly J. Hartzler , Barnes &
Thornburg LLP, 2121 N. Pearl Street, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75201
Andrews Dairy Store Inc, Defendant, pro se.
L.D. Williams, Inc. & LDW Development LLC, Defendants, represented
by Andrew M. McNeil -amcneil@boselaw.com - Bose McKinney & Evans
LLP, Bradley M. Dick – bdick@boselaw.com - Bose McKinney & Evans
LLP & Bradley R. Sugarman – sugerman@boselaw.com - Bose McKinney
& Evans LLP.
UNIV. OF SOUTHERN CALIF: Sexual Health Doctor Surrenders License
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wesha Dikshit, Shaylee Navarro and Natalie Oganesyan, writing for
Daily Trojan, report that former men's sexual health doctor Dennis
Kelly surrendered his medical license on Jan. 30 after the Medical
Board of California found that a physical or mental condition he
was diagnosed with in November would impair his ability to safely
practice medicine.
According to MBC public information manager Carlos Villatoro, Kelly
agreed and decided to instead surrender his license.
"The mission of the Medical Board of California is for protection
and the surrender of [Kelly's] license meets that protection," he
wrote in an email.
Though separate, this comes nearly a year after six former USC
students filed a lawsuit against the doctor, accusing him of sexual
battery, sexual harassment and gender violence. Since February,
nearly 50 men, most of whom identify as gay and bisexual, have
joined a class-action lawsuit alleging sexual misconduct and gender
discrimination.
"I think we're obviously relieved to know that he will no longer be
practicing medicine or seeing patients," said attorney Kelly Van
Aken, who represents several plaintiffs in the lawsuit against
Kelly and USC. "So, you know, we see this as a good thing."
According to court documents, Kelly's condition is progressive and
renders him "permanently unsafe to practice medicine." Kelly has
had his medical license since 1974.
"This is a personal decision and licensing matter between the
medical board and Dr. Kelly; the university was not a party to this
matter," USC said in a statement. "USC is committed to a culture of
respect and support for all patients, students, faculty and staff
and, in these cases, the concerns of the LGBTQ+ community are
especially important to us."
Kelly's lawyers did not respond to requests for comment regarding
his surrender of the license in time for publication.
Kelly worked at USC for nearly 20 years before resigning in August
2018. He was the only men's sexual health doctor at USC during his
employment. Former patients have accused him of conducting
unnecessary rectal examinations and refusing to give "standard
medical covering, drapery or robe for privacy" to plaintiffs,
according to court documents. He is also accused of discriminating
against plaintiffs' sexual orientations and using derogatory terms
when asking about the plaintiff's sexual history and practices.
"The case is continuing to proceed in the complex litigation
department and Los Angeles Superior Court," Van Aken said. "The
parties are working cooperatively to move the case along, but we're
still in the pretty early stages."
She is unsure if the diagnosed condition will impact the case.
Kelly has worked as a men's health specialist at Cal State
Northridge since 2002, where he is still employed, though he was
placed on administrative leave in February after the first lawsuit
surfaced. [GN]
VUORI INC: Cruz Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------
Vuori, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael Cruz,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Vuori, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01470 (S.D. N.Y., Feb.
19, 2020).
Vuori is a men's active lifestyle apparel brand that draws
inspiration from a coastal California lifestyle, an integration of
yoga, surf, art, music and a strong visionary spirit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
WAWA INC: Greater Chautauqua Files Suit in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wawa, Inc. The case
is styled as Greater Chautauqua Federal Credit Union, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated Financial
Institutions, Plaintiff v. Wawa, Inc. and Wild Goose Holding Co.,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00895-GEKP (E.D., Pa., Feb. 18,
2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed pursuant to the Diversity-Other Contract.
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:
Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq.
Hausfeld LLP
1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202) 540-7200
Email: jkenney@hausfeldllp.com
WAWA INC: Insight Credit Files Suit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wawa, Inc. The case
is styled as Insight Credit Union, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wawa, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00930-GEKP (E.D., Pa., Feb. 19, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Personal
Property: Other filed pursuant to the Diversity-Property Damage.
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:
Michael J. Boni, Esq.
Boni, Zack & Snyder LLC
15 ST. Asaphs RD.
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Tel: (610) 822-0200
Fax: (610) 822-0206
Email: mboni@bonizack.com
WESTPAC BANKING: Faces Another Class Action Over Money Laundering
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shriya Ramakrishnan, writing for Reuters, reports that Australia's
No. 2 lender Westpac Banking Corp was hit with another U.S.
class-action lawsuit in less than a week on Feb. 3, over issues
with its financial crime monitoring amid a recent money laundering
scandal.
Westpac was sued by Australia's financial crime watchdog AUSTRAC in
November for 23 million alleged breaches of anti-money laundering
laws, including payments between known child exploiters.
The latest suit, filed by investor rights law firm Bernstein
Liebhard in a U.S. court, comes just days after six U.S.-based law
firms announced similar class-action lawsuits against the lender.
Westpac on Feb. 1 had cautioned that similar suits may follow,
while responding to New York-based Rosen Law Firm's suit.
Bernstein said in a statement the class action was filed on behalf
of investors who bought Westpac's securities between Nov. 11, 2015
and Nov. 19, 2019.
The law firm accused the lender of not carrying out appropriate due
diligence on transactions in Southeast Asia and the Philippines,
and failing to monitor terrorism financing risks with movement of
money into and out of Australia among others.
Last month, the lender appointed a former Barclays boss as its
chairman to steer it through the money-laundering scandal.
Westpac media representatives did not immediately respond to an
email and a call seeking comment. [GN]
WESTPAC BANKING: Rosen Law Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Westpac Banking Corporation (NYSE: WBK) between
November 11, 2015 and November 19, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Westpac
investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Westpac class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1762.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) contrary to Australian law, the Company failed to report
over 19.5 million international funds transfer instructions to
AUSTRAC, Australia's anti money-laundering and terrorism financing
regulator; (2) the Company did not appropriately monitor and assess
the ongoing money laundering and terrorism financing risks
associated with movement of money into and out of Australia; (3)
the Company did not pass on requisite information about the source
of funds to other banks in the transfer chain; (4) despite being
aware of the heightened risks, the Company did not carry out
appropriate due diligence on transactions in South East Asia and
the Philippines that had known financial indicators relating to
child exploitation risks; (5) the Company's AML/CTF Program was
inadequate to identify, mitigate and manage money laundering and
terrorism financing risks; and (6) 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.
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 30,
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-1762.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.
Contact:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com, pkim@rosenlegal.com,
cases@rosenlegal.com
Website: www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
WESTPAC BANKING: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Mickleboro, writing for Motley Fool, reports that The Westpac
Banking Corp announced that Rosen Law Firm has filed a class action
lawsuit against it in the United States on behalf of purchasers of
its securities between November 11, 2015 and November 19, 2019
inclusive.
The banking giant advised that the claim seeks to recover damages
of an unspecified amount and relates to market disclosure issues
connected to Westpac's monitoring of financial crime over the
period and matters which are the subject of the recent AUSTRAC
proceeding in the Federal Court.
The bank's former CEO, Brian Hartzer, and its current CEO, Peter
King, have been named as defendants.
What did Rosen Law Firm say?
Rosen Law Firm claims that the defendants throughout the class
period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:
(1) contrary to Australian law, the company failed to report over
19.5 million international funds transfer instructions to AUSTRAC,
Australia's anti money-laundering and terrorism financing
regulator;
(2) the company did not appropriately monitor and assess the
ongoing money laundering and terrorism financing risks associated
with movement of money into and out of Australia;
(3) the company did not pass on requisite information about the
source of funds to other banks in the transfer chain;
(4) despite being aware of the heightened risks, the company did
not carry out appropriate due diligence on transactions in South
East Asia and the Philippines that had known financial indicators
relating to child exploitation risks;
(5) the company's AML/CTF Program was inadequate to identify,
mitigate and manage money laundering and terrorism financing
risks;
(6) 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.
What is Rosen Law Firm?
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the world and
concentrates its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.
It was ranked number one by ISS Securities Class Action Services
for number of securities class action settlements in 2017.
The firm has been ranked in the top three each year since 2013 and
has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. [GN]
WILLIAMS ALEXANDER: Hovance Files FDCPA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Williams, Alexander &
Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Randy Hovance, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Williams, Alexander & Associates, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00856 (E.D., N.Y., Feb. 18, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Williams Alexander & Associates (WAA) is a debt collection agency
located in Wayne, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
ZAGER FUCHS: Class Cert. Bid in Zangara Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned CHRISTINE ZANGARA, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ZAGER FUCHS,
P.C. & MICHAEL T. WARSHAW, Defendants, Case No. 17-6755 (MAS) (DEA)
(D.N.J.).
This matter comes before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.
Plaintiff asserts violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA) against Defendants stemming from a collection action in
New Jersey state court. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants sought
damages, including attorney's fees, greater than what was owed by
Plaintiff and failed to itemize or explain those claimed damages.
Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants filed similar collection
complaints in violation of the FDCPA against twenty-six consumers
(including Plaintiff) in New Jersey.
Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class:
All New Jersey consumers against whom Defendants filed a lawsuit at
any time on or after July 31, 2016 to collect or attempt to collect
an alleged debt incurred primarily for personal family or household
purposes that included (1) a demand for a fixed amount of
attorneys' fees in the body of the lawsuit above the prayer for
relief that was not yet due and owing and/or (2) a demand for an
amount owed that was in excess of the actual amount owed without
providing an itemization or explanation for the excess amount.
LEGAL STANDARD
A class may be certified pursuant to Rule 23(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure when:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
class (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class and(4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.
Plaintiff fails to show that the numerosity requirement is
satisfied
For class certification, a plaintiff must show by a preponderance
of the evidence that the class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable. Although no minimum number of plaintiffs
is required to maintain a suit as a class action, the general rules
are: a class of twenty or fewer members is usually insufficiently
numerous; a class of over forty members is usually sufficiently
numerous; and a class of twenty-one to forty members may or may not
meet the numerosity requirement depending on the circumstances.
Plaintiff's assertion is misplaced. At this stage, the choice is
not between a class action and twenty-six individual suits, but
between a class action and joinder of the twenty-six proposed class
members. Plaintiff fails to justify why a class action is
substantially more efficient than joinder of the proposed class
members.
Plaintiff asserts that this factor weighs in favor of numerosity
because class members have all had a debt-collection complaint
brought against them for allegedly defaulting on a debt, so it is
unlikely that that they will have the resources to be able to
pursue individual, costly actions involving a relatively small
claim, as recovery under the FDCPA is capped at $1,000 per
plaintiff.
It is reasonable to assume that low-value claims and cash-strapped
plaintiffs make it less likely for claims to be asserted
individually.
Furthermore, because the ability and motivation of the proposed
class members to litigate their claims via joinder overlaps with
the consideration of class members' financial resources, the Court
finds that Plaintiff has not shown that the third factor weighs in
favor of numerosity.
The Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
must be denied because Plaintiff fails to demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence that the numerosity requirement is
satisfied.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is DENIED.
A full-text copy of the District Court's November 25, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yx5g4anr from
Leagle.com
CHRISTINE ZANGARA, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by BHARATI O. SHARMA -
bsharma@wolflawfirm.net - THE WOLF LAW FIRM LLC.
ZAGER FUCHS, P.C. & MICHAEL T. WARSHAW, Defendants, represented by
LAWRENCE J. BARTEL III – lbartel@grsm.com - Gordon Rees Scully
Mansukhani.
[*] Budtender Lawsuit Claims Workers Are Paid in Weed
-----------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Bartlett, writing for Green Entrepreneur, reports that one
issue facing the growing cannabis industry is that it is
dangerously open to lawsuits.
Entrepreneurs in the marijuana space are in a more vulnerable
position than those in other industries because there is no
established federal protection, no historical cases on the books to
refer to, and it's overall challenging to move an entire industry
from the unlicensed to the licensed world. This evolution has been
uncovering some worker's rights issues.
A new class-action lawsuit claims budtenders and other people who
have worked in dispensaries may be overworked, underpaid, forced to
work through lunch, paid in weed, not paid at all, or paid under
the table. All of these practices are now huge risks that companies
need to avoid. Entrepreneurs must be 100 percent compliant to move
into the licensed marketplace.
I noticed an ad for a cannabis class action lawsuit on Twitter. It
reads: "Paid in weed, paid under the table, or not paid at all:
Cannabis workers are speaking out against shady business practices
and fighting back for what they're legally owed."
The suit "Investigation: Cannabis Dispensary Labor Violations" by
ClassAction.org was a promoted Tweet and is calling on dispensary
workers. It is likely targeted at cannabis legal states, I live in
California and formerly Colorado. The ad says: "Even though
cannabis is illegal on a federal level, employees in the legal
marijuana industry are still covered by federal and state labor
protections."
The suit lists the potential causes for investigation including:
* Unpaid overtime wages
* Having to work off the clock
* Having to work through lunch breaks
* Being misclassified as an independent contractor
* Being paid a day rate without time-and-a-half pay for
overtime work
* Being paid "under the table"
The language in the post tells cannabis industry workers to "fight
back." It echoes other class action language in its call-to-arms
motivation. This will be a moment in the cannabis industry timeline
where companies that have treated workers poorly could potentially
see karmic debt returned. Even the cost of fighting such suits is
an expensive endeavor you want to avoid at all costs.
Retaining talent in the physically taxing budtender role is often a
challenge for dispensaries. Employees who work in the cultivation
facility are tax deductable, employees who work in the dispensary
as a budtender are not. While budtenders are the "gatekeepers," and
serve a vital role in the cannabis industry ecosystem, it's a role
that sees high turnover.
Knowing all of this, you want to protect your company against
potential lawsuits.
"Any time there's a lawsuit, particularly in the cases of these new
class actions coming out, people are looking for deep pockets,"
Vicente Sederberg partner and cannabis attorney Jeffrey D. Welsh
told Green Entrepreneur. "Plaintiffs aren't interested in suing
someone they are not going to get a payday from. The larger your
company gets, the more of a target you become."
As your business grows, treating your employees with respect across
the ecosystem is extremely important. From trimmers to budtenders
all the way up to the C-Suite, follow the legal regulations for
employee treatment and compensation. Protect your employees' rights
and your company's risk of litigation in the long run. [GN]
[*] Combustible Cladding Case Invite Unsure Building Owners to Join
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Pennington, writing for RNZ, reports that building owners
worried they might have combustible cladding on their
multi-storeys, but who have not been identified on any official
list, are looking into taking legal action.
Combustible aluminium composite cladding and insulation helped fuel
the Grenfell fire in London that killed 72 people in 2017.
Polly Pope of law firm Russell McVeagh is registering interest in a
cladding class action to replace cladding on New Zealand
high-rises.
Similar legal action is being taken in Australia and Britain.
"That has included owners of buildings that aren't identified on
the published council lists as including ACP cladding," said Pope,
a commercial disputes lawyer.
"This supports the impression that we had based on anecdotal
feedback, that the exposure of building owners in New Zealand might
be wider than previously understood."
Altogether, several hundred buildings were identified by city
councils in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch as having a type
of PE (polyethylene or plastic core) combustible or
semi-combustible (FR) cladding panels.
The councils have admitted their lists have many holes and they
have been unable to pin down or find records of cladding types in
many cases.
The class action is for owners who have Alucobond or Vitrabond PE
panels - or suspect they have them.
"What we're finding is that some people have difficulty, in fact,
understanding or knowing for certain what type of cladding that
they have, and if they do meet some eligibility requirements,
getting involved in the claim can help people actually identify
what cladding they do have," Pope said.
The mass suspension then revocation, of Codemark certificates for
the panels and the subsequent widespread fallout documented by RNZ
raised the profile of the problem, she said. [GN]
[*] FeganScott's Founding Partner Named 2020 Illinois Super Lawyer
------------------------------------------------------------------
FeganScott's founding partner and managing member Elizabeth A.
Fegan was recently named a 2020 Illinois Super Lawyer for the fifth
consecutive year. The distinction, recognized by professional
rating service, Super Lawyers(R), is only awarded to the top 5% of
attorneys in each state.
Fegan was recognized in her primary practice area, "Class
Action/Mass Torts: Plaintiff."
"It's such an honor to be recognized by my peers and Super
Lawyers," said Fegan. "Illinois is home to many skilled attorneys,
and it's a privilege to practice among such dedicated and talented
professionals."
On the vanguard of legal battles surrounding sexual assault, abuse
and harassment, Fegan currently serves as co-lead counsel in the
class-action lawsuit against Harvey Weinstein. Fegan also leads
class-action lawsuits against corporate giants like Allergan, Apple
and Zantac and was part of the historic settlement with the NCAA
that created a 50-year medical monitoring program to provide all
current and former student-athletes with access to state-of-the-art
neuropsychological testing.
In 2019, Fegan co-founded FeganScott, a national class-action law
firm dedicated to helping victims of sexual assault,
discrimination, consumer fraud and antitrust violations.
Collectively, the firm's attorneys have successfully recovered $1
billion for clients nationwide.
Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a rating service of
outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have
attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional
achievement. The recognition is based on a rigorous independent
research evaluation process, which factors in verdicts,
settlements, experience and professional activity. The qualifying
lawyers make up a comprehensive and credible list of attorneys in
each state.
"This nomination certainly reflects the tenacity and spirit of all
the attorneys at FeganScott," said Fegan. "Our work creates lasting
change that is felt across industries and I'm honored to continue
to be a powerful ally for victims."
About FeganScott
FeganScott is a national class-action law firm dedicated to helping
victims of consumer fraud, sexual abuse, and discrimination. The
firm is championed by acclaimed veteran, class-action attorneys who
have successfully recovered $1 billion for victims nationwide.
FeganScott is committed to pursuing successful outcomes with
integrity and excellence while holding the responsible parties
accountable. [GN]
[*] Professor Calls for Change in Fee Formula for Class Defendants
------------------------------------------------------------------
Raychel Lean, writing for the Daily Business Review, reports that
Vanderbilt University law professor and former law clerk to U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Brian T. Fitzpatrick has a
bone to pick with litigators and judges handling class-action
lawsuits.
In light of recent rule changes aimed at streamlining cases,
Fitzpatrick claims now is the time to remove some financial burdens
for defendants, who he says are regularly forced to settle lawsuits
for more than they're worth - simply to avoid facing enormous
discovery costs.
But critics say such a move would deprive consumers of their most
powerful tool for holding large corporations accountable.
"I think our courts have the power now to split the costs of
discovery a little more evenly, and I think they should be more
willing to do that, so defendants are not forced to oversettle
cases," he said following a presentation to the 2020 Class Action &
complex Litigation Forum at the University of Miami. "And
plaintiffs won't file meritless cases because they think they can
get a settlement, because defendants don't want to spend money on
discovery."
Fitzpatrick is also calling for a change in the fee formula. He
argues that instead of paying plaintiffs lawyers based on the
number of hours they've spent on a class action case, they should
be paid based on results.
"That doesn't give the lawyer good incentive to spend a lot of
hours working on a case," he said. "Judges should only pay lawyers
a percentage of the actual amount of money defendants end up paying
out."
The problem, Fitzpatrick claims, is that U.S. Supreme Court
precedent allows judges to award fees to plaintiffs lawyers based
on what a class action defendant might pay - in light of how many
people could potentially file a claim. But because not all class
members will necessarily fill in a claim form, it's often not the
amount defendants actually pay.
Fitzpatrick outed himself as a conservative in favor of
class-action litigation, otherwise known as a unicorn in his
field.
That's because since President Ronald Reagan rose to power in the
1980s, the political right has favored a hands-off approach to
business, aimed at maintaining a free marketplace that's unburdened
by regulations and restrictions. Conservatives have therefore shied
away from class-action litigation, because of the toll it can take
on corporations.
But Fitzpatrick's book, The Conservative Case for Class Actions,
claims lawyers are better enforcers than government agencies - not
because of political or ethical reasons, but because of their
thirst for money.
"The private sector is profit motivated, and we think that that
usually leads to better outcomes than relying on government
employees that get paid the same no matter what they do,"
Fitzpatrick said. "We like smaller government better than bigger
government. If we didn't have all these plaintiffs lawyers
enforcing the law, we'd have to have thousands more government
lawyers to do it."
Governments are often strapped for cash and focused on politics and
campaign contributions, Fitzpatrick claims, while the private
sector is beholden to just one thing.
"If you have contingency fees that can be made, someone will fund
your case for you," he said. "On top of that we have common sense,
which is: if you think you might get sued for doing something,
you're less likely to do it."
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom partner John Beisner leads his
firm's mass torts and insurance litigation group in Washington,
D.C. He said Fitzpatrick's argument might have some appeal for
individual cases but goes "off the rails" for class actions.
Instead, Beisner argues there's good reason for the public to lack
confidence in a private enforcement system, which he described as
"no different than permitting self-appointed police officers."
"I'm not saying the system is inherently bad," Beisner told Florida
judges and attorneys at the annual forum. "What I'm saying is it's
a litigation system, and it doesn't transfer to being an
enforcement system."
The only way to avoid misconduct through self-dealing, Beisner
argued, is by making decisions that are inherently in the public
interest, rather than financial.
"Usually what happens in these settlements is a small amount is
paid to class members and a large amount is paid to lawyers," he
said.
Without changing a U.S. Supreme Court decision in AT&T Mobility LLC
v. Concepcion, a case that expanded the rights of businesses to use
contractual language to swerve class actions and compel
arbitration, Fitzpatrick claims the future could be "very bleak."
"I'm worried we're going to lose the most powerful device we have
to hold companies accountable when they do something wrong," he
said. "People who are interested in private sector solutions in
Florida should talk to their congresspeople and senators, and ask
them to explain why they're not supporting the private enforcement
device. Because if we don't have private enforcement, we're going
to end up either with no enforcement or, even worse, government
enforcement." [GN]
[*] Securities Class-Action Lawsuits Hit New Record in 2019
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Croce, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that there
were 428 securities class-action lawsuits filed in 2019 - a record
number, according to a report released on Jan. 29 by Cornerstone
Research and the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action
Clearinghouse.
The suits were filed across federal and state courts, eclipsing the
420 cases in 2018. The number of core filings - those not focused
on mergers and acquisitions — increased for the seventh straight
year, this time to 268 from 238, according to the report,
"Securities Class Action Filings — 2019 Year in Review."
Mergers and acquisitions filings dropped to 160 in 2019 from 182
the year prior.
The impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Cyan Inc.
vs. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund continues to
reverberate, Cornerstone noted in a news release. In that case, the
high court issued a unanimous opinion allowing plaintiffs to assert
claims in state courts under the Securities Act of 1933. The report
found those claims in state courts rose to 49 in 2019, a 40%
increase from the previous year. Almost half of state claims had
parallel actions in federal court.
"The significant increase in state actions following Cyan indicates
plaintiffs are modifying their approach, and we will continue to
monitor the trend," Alexander "Sasha" Aganin, Cornerstone Research
senior vice president and co-author of the report, said in the news
release.
The likelihood of an S&P 500 company being sued declined after a
decade high in 2018 (9.4%). Of the companies in the S&P at the
beginning of 2019, 7.2% were a defendant in core filings throughout
the year.
The report's Maximum Dollar Loss index showed a slight decrease in
2019 - to $1.2 trillion from a record high $1.3 trillion in 2018.
For the second consecutive year, there were at least 20 mega MDL
filings, compared with 14 in 2017, the report noted. Mega filings -
those with an MDL of at least $10 billion - primarily involved
pharmaceutical, technology and communication companies, the report
found. [GN]
[*] Victoria Set to Introduce U.S.-Style Class Action Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Mills, writing for Brisbane Times, reports that Victoria is
poised to introduce US-style fee arrangements for law firms running
class actions.
Set for further debate in parliament on Jan. 28, contingency fees
arrangements would allow plaintiff lawyers to take a percentage of
the settlement or judgment amount, instead of charging clients an
hourly rate or a fixed fee.
Given settlement amounts in class actions soar into the millions,
the new arrangement would mean lawyers stand to earn more, with
critics saying this leaves practitioners "hopelessly conflicted".
But the change, which is supported by the Victorian Law Institute
and Victorian Law Reform Commission, could increase access to
justice because it reduces financial risks to clients.
At the moment, unless a law practice is willing to act on a
'no-win, no-fee' basis or clients buy insurance, if a class action
is unsuccessful the plaintiff risks being personally liable for
paying the defendant's costs, Attorney-General Jill Hennessy told
parliament.
Corrs Chambers Westgarth head of class actions Chris Pagent said if
passed, firms might well have an opportunity to garner a greater
profit, but the lawyers were taking on far greater risks because
they would bear the exposure rather than the client.
"If the litigation is unsuccessful, the law firm will have to bear
the claimant's costs as well as the defendant's and additionally,
they will have to give security for those costs during the
litigation," Mr Pagent said.
Australian Law Alliance Victorian president Jeremy King said the
change would protect clients.
"It will clearly benefit vulnerable and disadvantaged individuals
who may otherwise be unable to pursue a claim because of the cost,"
Mr King said.
At the moment, litigation funders often pay the legal costs and
expenses of clients in exchange for a cut of the result plus
commission.
Typically, the commissions were in the order of 15 to 25 per cent,
Mr Pagent said, which could provide a reference point when lawyers
ask judges to decide their contingency fee under the new
arrangement.
"Law firms who seek to take advantage of a contingency fee
arrangement will compete in the same market as the litigation
funders . . . it will increase the level of competition and that
may have a downward impact on commissions which are charged to
claimants," he said.
But contingency fees could affect a lawyer's incentive to give
impartial advice, and being liable for costs could lead to earlier
settlements that aren't in the interest of clients.
"Lawyers all of a sudden will have far more skin in the game,"
Mr Pagent said.
"Do they want the best outcome possible or do they want the best
outcome for themselves?"
Former Law Council of Australia president Stuart Clark said the
funding system was "very much contrary to the interests of clients"
and leaves lawyers hopelessly conflicted.
"The legal profession is moving away from being a profession and
becoming a business . . . it's all about making money now rather
than delivering justice," Mr Clark said.
"The only thing standing between US-style class litigation and
Australia is the absence of contingency fees."
Mr Pagent said he didn't expect the number of class actions to
increase, but instead change the way the cases were run. [GN]
[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 4
---------------------------------------------------
Beard Group, Inc. is hosting the 4th Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference in NYC on Monday, May 4th.
Sponsorship opportunities are currently available.
Showcase your firm's expertise on a panel in front of 150+ class
action attorneys, general counsel, litigation financiers,
consultants, claims administrators, reporters and academics.
For sponsorship options and details, contact Colin Post at
colin@beardgroup.com
Visit the conference website: http://bit.ly/2RlIHvo
*********
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 ***